ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

EDUCATION

The Secretary of State was asked—

Careers Service

Fiona O'Donnell: When he plans to issue his transition plan for the careers service.

Tim Loughton: The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning—who is here with us in spirit, if not in body today—committed during an Education Bill debate to hold a summit for interested parties to focus on issues of transition to the new arrangements for young people’s careers guidance. That summit is to take place this Friday. Following the event, we will set out key milestones for the transition period up to September 2012 to support local authorities’ transition planning. We will also look to share examples of the models being developed at the local level, and the material will be made available on the Local Government Association’s communities of practice website.

Fiona O'Donnell: We know that this Government are fond of pauses, but it is eight months since the Minister announced the end of Connexions and the start of the new all-age career service. In the meantime, parents and practitioners have been left with no help to support young people in assessing their options or planning for their futures, so will Casper the Ghost Minister take this opportunity to provide detailed guidance, eight months after it was promised, on how the transitional arrangements and the new service will work?

Tim Loughton: I am impressed by the hon. Lady’s affection for Connexions, which does not exist in Scotland anyway. She will have just four more days to wait until after the summit that was promised and discussed in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Minister will lay out our plans in detail, with plenty of time for the transitions to come into effect.

Charlotte Leslie: Will the Minister update us on the Government’s plans to introduce performance measures that highlight the progress in attainment not only of those on the five A*-to-C boundary, but of those not achieving that level?

Tim Loughton: I am not entirely sure of the connection with the transition plans for careers services.

Kevin Brennan: There is no “connexion”.

Tim Loughton: There is an odd connection, as the hon. Gentleman says. Last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the plans for raising the threshold, which is surely a much more realistic and aspirational target than the rather poor compromise that we have had up to now.

Iain Wright: I am not surprised that the Minister in charge of the careers service does not want to show his face in this place—it has not done his own career any good—but I am pleased that our man in Havana is with us today. This whole episode has
	been handled absolutely shambolically, but will the Minister now at least confirm, even at this late stage, that despite the lack of a transition plan eight months on from the announcement, face-to-face quality advice and guidance from a careers professional will be provided to all children, and that no one will be left out?

Tim Loughton: As a question, that was close, but no cigar. However, just last week the hon. Gentleman was referring to my hon. Friend the Minister as his friend, and he will appreciate more than many the immense amount of work that he has put in to ensure that the arrangements are absolutely right. Let us remember that it was the hon. Gentleman’s former friend, the right hon. Alan Milburn, who panned the former Connexions service as being patchy and inefficient. We want to ensure that we do not make those sorts of mistakes and that we get it right for our many young people in future.

English Baccalaureate

Stephen Lloyd: What assessment he has made of the effects of the decision not to include religious education in the English baccalaureate.

Nick Gibb: We have had a large number of representations about the potential effect of the English baccalaureate on religious education in schools. We are carrying out our own work to assess the extent of the changes that schools are making from next year, and we shall continue to monitor the take-up of all subjects and the associated staffing implications. Religious education remains a vital subject that it is compulsory for all schools to teach through to the age of 16.

Stephen Lloyd: I have been lobbying the Government on this issue for some months now. The schools Minister has repeatedly asked for evidence to back up claims that excluding RE from the E-bac will have a negative impact on take-up and teaching provision. Last week, a report by the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education, based on evidence from half of all state schools in England, showed that a quarter of schools are not providing statutory RE for 14 to 16-year-olds. Will the Minister address the issue, now that we have the proof?

Nick Gibb: The NATRE study cited by my hon. Friend suggests that around one in six schools anticipate a drop in religious studies entries at GCSE related to the E-bac, but it is not clear what overall effect that might have on take-up. Well over half of schools specifically indicated in that survey that there would not be a drop in GCSE entries in RS; indeed, a proportion said that there would be an increase in entries. That bears out the fact that the English baccalaureate does not prevent any school from offering RS GCSEs, and RE remains a statutory part of the curriculum.

Andy Burnham: I do not know whether you are a fan of films of the ‘80s, Mr Speaker, but you might remember one called “Back to the Future”. It starred a man called Michael who was trapped in the 1950s—an echo, perhaps, of someone else in modern politics. Ministers are hopelessly stuck in the past: they drop work experience at key stage 4 and promote Latin
	above engineering, ICT and RE, yet we know religious education helps young people understand the world today. Ministers tell us that the E-bac is what parents and students want, so will the Minister tell us what percentage of year 9 students who have recently chosen their GCSE options have opted for the English bac?

Nick Gibb: We do not collect the figure centrally. We will see the effect of the English baccalaureate when we see the GCSE results this year, next year and the year after that. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a modern curriculum, he should be aware that we need modern languages to be taught in our schools. Under his watch, the numbers entering for GCSE in modern languages plummeted from 79% in the year 2000 to just 43% last year, while the proportion taking geography fell from 44% in 1997 to 27% last year. The range of subjects in the English baccalaureate is mirrored elsewhere in modern emerging economies such as Singapore, France, Japan and Alberta. [Hon. Members: “Alberta?”] In Canada. Those are the most successful education jurisdictions.

Andy Burnham: It is just not good enough that the Minister does not know about the impact his policies are having on student choices in schools. In my constituency, about 30% of young people are opting for the English bac; what does the Minister have to say to the other 70% who have chosen not to do it? RE teachers, music teachers and art teachers are at risk of redundancy because of the English baccalaureate. No wonder nine faith leaders wrote to The Daily Telegraphthis weekend to say that they were
	“gravely concerned about the negative impact current Government policies are having on RE in schools”.
	Ministers promised freedom, choice and autonomy in education; is it not time that they started living up to those words?

Nick Gibb: If we were to take advice from the right hon. Gentleman, we would have a cap on aspiration for young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. He should be ashamed of the fact that his Government left this Government a legacy whereby only 8% of pupils on free school meals were even entered for the English baccalaureate subjects, and these are subjects that the Russell group of universities regards as the facilitating subjects that give rise to progression. Only 4% of those pupils actually achieved the results in comparison with 15.6% nationally. The right hon. Gentleman had a cap on aspiration; we want to raise aspiration right across the abilities and backgrounds of young people.

Public Examinations

Edward Leigh: What steps he is taking to ensure that public examinations are set to a high standard.

Michael Gove: The Government are committed to ensuring that GCSEs and A-levels compare with the best exams in the world, so we will increase the role of higher education in the development of A-levels; we will change the rules on modules and retakes so that GCSE examinations are
	taken at the end of the course; and we will ensure that proper marks are once more given for spelling, punctuation and grammar.

Edward Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend recall a study by the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2008—I think he will because he commented on it at the time—showing that 1,300 of the brightest 16-year-olds found great difficulty answering questions taken from the 1960s and ’70s? Does this not prove that standards have dropped? Is there any evidence that the steps my right hon. Friend is taking will make a real difference so that we can halt the catastrophic decline in the standard of A-levels?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is absolutely right to say that the Royal Society of Chemistry and other learned bodies have pointed out that some examinations our young people sit today simply do not compare with the best in the world. I have asked the Office of the Qualifications and Examinations Regulator to ensure that the tests that our children sit to prepare them for the 21st century are every bit as rigorous as those in the other countries that the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) mentioned, which are currently outpacing us in educational achievement.

John Mann: On 9 June, Ofqual apologised for the record number of examination question errors this year and said that every paper had been rechecked. On 12 June, three more examination papers were found with errors in them. Why?

Michael Gove: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern, which is why Ofqual has ensured that there will be an inquiry into the mistakes made by the awarding bodies. This is not the first year, and it might not be the last, in which awarding bodies made mistakes in examinations, but it is a cause of heartbreak for every family affected. We inherited an examination system from the previous Government that needed reform. That is why we are changing both the way Ofqual operates and the way in which awarding bodies are held to account.

“Out of Mind, Out of Sight”

Ann Coffey: What representations he has received on the report “Out of Mind, Out of Sight” issued by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre.

Tim Loughton: The CEOP thematic assessment has been widely welcomed as an important contribution to the tackling of child sexual exploitation. As available data are limited, the report does not provide a complete picture of this horrific abuse, but it does help us to understand much better the scale, nature and complexity of the issues that we are facing. As the hon. Lady knows, the Government are working with national and local partners to develop a comprehensive action plan, which we will publish this autumn.

Ann Coffey: The CEOP report says that sexually exploited children frequently go missing or run away, but, the Children’s Society report “Make Runaways
	Safe”, which was published today, says that two thirds of runaway children are not reported missing. One of its most disturbing findings is that most runaway children do not seek help because they do not feel that there is anyone whom they can trust. When drawing up his action plan, will the Minister take full account of the findings of both those reports?

Tim Loughton: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady again for the immense amount of work that she has done. She andI recently took part in a debate on the subject in Westminster Hall. She is right to draw attention to the strong link between runaway children and sexual exploitation, and that will certainly feature in the action plan we are drawing up. The Children’s Society report, which was published today, makes even more harrowing reading and reminds us of the urgency of the task. According to the report, children as young as eight are subjected to sexual exploitation, which is completely unacceptable.

Industrial Action

Pamela Nash: On how many days annually on average schools were closed owing to strike action between (a) 1979 and 1997 and (b) 1997 and 2010; and what assessment he has made of the likely trends in days lost to such action in the next four years.

Michael Gove: My Department published detailed information on school closures associated with the industrial action on 30 June. The Department has not collected such detailed figures in the past, so we do not have comprehensive figures for the days lost between 1979 and 2010, and it is not possible to predict the number of days on which schools might close in the event of future industrial action.

Pamela Nash: It is clear from figures available to Labour Members that more strike days were taken under the previous Conservative Government than under the more recent Labour Government. Is that because a Tory-led Government are incapable of sitting around a table and negotiating with teachers, or does the Secretary of State have an alternative explanation?

Michael Gove: I agree with the hon. Lady that negotiation is important. That is why I look forward to talking to representatives of the trade unions later this afternoon and why I value the discussions that we have with them, not just about pensions but about every issue.

Kevin Brennan: In all the pension negotiations that have led to the recent strikes, the Secretary of State seems to have been a bit of a non-entity. Has he made any representations to his Cabinet Office and Treasury colleagues in support of the teachers’ case on pensions, or has he decided simply to wash his hands of their concerns?

Michael Gove: I note that the hon. Gentleman has promoted me from Marty McFly to Pontius Pilate in just 30 seconds. Far from washing my hands, however, I have been actively intervening to ensure that, across Government, we make certain that pensions for valued public sector workers such as teachers are protected,
	while at the same time being fair to all taxpayers and reflecting the reforms that Lord Hutton, in his excellent report, suggested we pursue.

Youth Services

Stella Creasy: What recent representations he has received on the benefits of year-round youth services.

Tim Loughton: I discuss youth services regularly with a wide range of stakeholders, particularly young people. The Government acknowledge the value of year-round services when they are of high quality, but too many are of variable quality, insufficiently targeted on those most in need, and not open to a range of providers. Through the early intervention grant we are encouraging local authorities to improve services by making better use of the voluntary sector, increasing the involvement of local businesses, and ensuring that disadvantaged young people receive early help.

Stella Creasy: On 4 May, the Minister told the Select Committee on Education that he was concerned about the “bang for your buck” in the provision of universal youth services. The Committee’s report on youth services shows that the national citizen service, as currently constructed, does not provide value for money. What action is the Minister taking to prevent himself from being hauled before the Public Accounts Committee for wasting valuable resources that should go to our young people?

Tim Loughton: I noticed that the term “value for money” tripped rather awkwardly from the hon. Lady’s lips. The Select Committee report was about services beyond the school day for young people aged between 13 and 25, yet the press release focused almost solely on the national citizens service, which is for 16-year-olds. We are running pilots this year. The purpose of pilots is to see how things work, and in this case to ensure we get value for money and the biggest bang for our buck so that as many of our 16-year-olds as possible will benefit from this wonderful scheme in years to come. I hope the hon. Lady will visit one of the schemes in her area.

Dan Rogerson: The Minister rightly pointed out that provision has been different in that the service has been non-statutory. What consideration has he given to the idea of objectives being proposed that it would be hoped commissioners would take up, so that young people across the country would be able to engage with the process and there could be some minimum standards?

Tim Loughton: I take on board my hon. Friend’s point. Youth service provision is very patchy across the country and needs to be modernised, and some youth services departments do not take on board what local people actually need. Above all, we must ensure that we involve all the relevant sectors and people—the voluntary and business sectors, youth workers and, most importantly, young people themselves, who are often not included in consultations on the services we provide for them. I am determined that under my watch that will be a thing of the past.

Toby Perkins: The Minister says he thinks value for money is important and stresses the importance of the voluntary sector in providing youth services, but the Select Committee on Education report makes it absolutely clear that voluntary service organisations are already playing a very significant part in youth service provision and tells the Government that they need to acknowledge what is happening on the ground and act now. Will the Minister speak up for our young people and explain what he is going to do about the crisis in youth service provision, with local authorities right across the country making swingeing cuts?

Tim Loughton: Unlike the previous Government who rather demonised young people, this Government will speak up for young people wherever we can. That is why the comprehensive youth policy we are putting together will be called “positive for youth.” It will include contributions from the voluntary sector, the business sector, the youth worker sector and young people themselves. Our very successful summit at the QEII centre in March was a springboard for probably the most comprehensive youth policy that any Government will produce. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman reading that report when it comes out in the autumn.

Traveller Children

Philip Hollobone: How many schools in England are attended entirely by Traveller children.

Nick Gibb: No schools in England are attended entirely by Traveller children.

Philip Hollobone: For the record, the Minister should be advised that Braybrooke primary school in my constituency is populated 100% by Traveller children. It must be the only school in the country where children from the local village do not attend and the entire population is made up of children from local Traveller camps. Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to visit the school to see how we might address this unique situation?

Nick Gibb: I will, of course, be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and Braybrooke primary school. The Government are committed to the promotion of community cohesion and to breaking down barriers between different groups in society, and we have committed £201 million within the dedicated schools grant to help schools raise the performance of ethnic minority pupils, including Traveller children.

Careers Service

Kate Green: What recent representations he has received on face-to-face careers advice.

Tim Loughton: The careers guidance provisions in clauses 26 and 27 of the Education Bill have been extensively debated and will be subjected to further scrutiny in the House of Lords. A wide range of stakeholders have submitted evidence to inform the passage of the Education Bill through Parliament.
	Ministers frequently respond to correspondence relating to the delivery of careers guidance. The subject has been raised in discussions with a number of interested parties including representatives from the careers sector, the Association of School and College Leaders and the Association of Colleges.

Kate Green: Careers advice and guidance will have to be provided in schools, but my understanding is that no inspection regime will be in force to ensure they do so. How will we know that schools facing scarcity of resources will provide impartial and high-quality advice?

Tim Loughton: The most important way we will discover how well the new system will work is not through measuring inputs, but through measuring outcomes. Ofsted will therefore have a role in looking at the destinations of young people leaving school, and that will be part of the performance measures we are currently discussing, which will be in place for 2012.

Simon Hughes: It is obvious from information around the country that the young people who most need face-to-face careers guidance are those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, where they do not receive that support at home. As Ministers consider how to deal with the Education Bill in the Lords and this guidance, will they reflect on the fact that specific advice that would lead to face-to-face careers guidance would be hugely valued, particularly in the most disadvantaged schools and areas?

Tim Loughton: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point and, as I say, those considerations will form part of the summit that my colleague is holding this Friday. He makes the point that every child is different, and we need to ensure that we provide tailor-made careers advice that is suitable and appropriate for the child. The new arrangements will give schools far greater flexibility to make sure that they are delivering what works to the children they know best.

Gordon Marsden: The Minister talks about outputs, but the reality is that we cannot look at them unless there is some input in the first place. People at my local schools in Blackpool are distraught that the Department has taken away the dedicated £200 million that was supposed to go into providing face-to-face guidance. How does he expect proper provision to be delivered if he is not investing any money in the first place?

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman will recall that funding for schools has been greatly protected, and now, by taking away the ring fences, we are making sure that schools can deliver the most appropriate, best-quality careers advice for the children they know best. That used to happen when I was at school under a Mr Herbert, although one could say that my ending up as a Member of Parliament does not suggest the best careers advice.

Pupil Premium

Eric Ollerenshaw: What assessment he has made of the way in which the pupil premium is being spent in (a) Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency and (b) England.

Sarah Teather: Schools are best placed to decide how to spend the pupil premium in ways that they judge to be most effective in helping their most deprived pupils. We will learn from those schools that are making the most effective use of the premium. From this year, performance tables will publish data showing the attainment gap between disadvantaged children and their more affluent peers. From September 2012, schools will provide information to parents about their use of pupil premium funding.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I am not sure that that was quite the answer to my question. Given the importance of this policy, the fact that we are at last beginning to target extra resources on some of the most disadvantaged pupils in all our schools and the fact that there have been so many failed policies in this sphere, how are we going to assess this policy?

Sarah Teather: The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that I did not answer his point about Lancaster and Fleetwood, so I will respond to him in writing about it. As I said, schools will be held accountable for their use of the pupil premium by the detail in the performance tables, which will be published from this year, and by the requirement from September 2012 to make it clear how they are spending their pupil premium money in respect of the progress made on the attainment of the pupils it covers. We are also very committed to providing advice on best practice and we will be doing that soon.

Mr Speaker: The motto is that Ministers should look at the question on the Order Paper before answering, rather than afterwards, but I appreciate what the Minister has said and I think that the House is grateful for it.

Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education

Jo Swinson: When he plans to launch the internal review of personal, social, health and economic education announced in the teaching White Paper.

Nick Gibb: We will announce details of the internal review of personal, social, health and economic education shortly. The issues covered in this subject are very important. We are taking time to ensure that the review, when it starts, can identify what schools need to do to improve PSHE while allowing teachers the flexibility to use their judgment on how best to deliver it.

Jo Swinson: Figures reported last week showed that among 13 and 14-year-olds more than 1,000 abortions were carried out last year, which just highlights the need for us to do better in providing high-quality sex education taught in the context of relationships. Will the Minister stop delaying the review—it was due to start in February —so that we can ensure that children have access to the vital information and learning they need to develop into healthy and confident young adults?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend is right to say that these are important issues. Children need to have good-quality PSHE at schools, and that is precisely what the review
	will cover. We are taking our time setting up the review to ensure that its remit is correctly drafted and that the quality of the review gives rise to a high-quality improvement in the teaching of PSHE in those subjects in our schools.

Fiona Mactaggart: But will he ensure that the need for schools to help to prevent domestic violence and violence between boys and girls is made a priority in the review? Every relevant Committee of this House, including the most recent Select Committee on Home Affairs, has identified that although in Britain we are relatively good at dealing with the policing of domestic violence, we are very bad at preventing it. Schools have more of a role to play; will the Minister ensure that they do that?

Nick Gibb: Yes. We are determined to play a strong part in the cross-government action plan on ending violence, particularly against women and girls, that is led by the Home Office. We are providing support to families with multiple problems, funded by the early intervention grant, and we are taking forward the recommendations of the Reg Bailey review. The PSHE review will consider sexual consent, which is an important issue to cover, and we are raising standards of behaviour in our schools, with a particular focus on anti-bullying.

Stewart Jackson: Following the publication of the internal review, will the Minister ensure that the consultation that is undertaken will restate the very important part that governors and parents play in the development of such policies?

Nick Gibb: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. All the reviews we are carrying out will be open and we will want a wide consultation with as many representations from interested parties as possible, including governors and parents.

Denis MacShane: There has been an explosion in internal trafficking and the grooming of school girls for the purposes of sexual exploitation, and although I hate to add more ideas to the curriculum, schools need to discuss that, to identify the symptoms and to explain the dangers to children. I hate to add new material to the work of the Department, but could this problem now be tackled in schools by alerting children to what they might face and how to recognise it?

Nick Gibb: The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise these issues. Such actions are crimes and are unacceptable in our society, and the issues that he raises were covered by the Reg Bailey review and will form a part of the review we are asking the committee to consider.

University Technical Colleges

Rob Wilson: What assessment he has made of the level of interest in establishing university technical colleges.

Michael Gove: My Department has received 37 applications to open university technical colleges.

Rob Wilson: The investment in UTCs and technical academies is very welcome and will, I believe, provide a substantial boost to education standards in the areas that will have them. Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to how we can accelerate the UTC programme so that more areas can benefit from this fantastic programme?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a champion of high-quality vocational and technical education. The Government are doing more for vocational and technical education than any and that is why I am so pleased that he is heavily involved with the bid to ensure that Reading receives an appropriate technical academy. We are doing everything possible to accelerate consideration of those bids and to support as many as possible and I am grateful for the support of the Chancellor.

Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State will know that many of us hope that the university technical school pilots will be successful and we watch with great interest. Has not an important opportunity been missed of working with the further education sector, which knows a lot about teaching young people from the age of 14 in technical subjects? Is there not a great deal of capacity and potential in that market, too?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman makes a characteristically shrewd point, which is why Professor Alison Wolf argued in her report that we should ensure parity of esteem between teachers in schools and those in further education colleges, that the qualified teacher learning and skills status, or QTLS, qualification should be considered equivalent to qualified teacher status, or QTS, and that the links between schools and FE colleges should be improved in a number of ways. As ever, the hon. Gentleman hits the nail squarely on the head.

Curriculum

Robert Flello: What recent representations he has received on the breadth of the curriculum.

Nick Gibb: We are currently reviewing the national curriculum. As part of that review, we have carried out a call for evidence that attracted nearly 5,800 responses, including many that raised issues about the breadth of the curriculum. The national curriculum sets out the curriculum that all maintained schools must teach, but it is only part of the wider curriculum, which is determined by school themselves. All schools are required to teach a broad and balanced curriculum.

Robert Flello: In considering representations, has the Minister thought about what Barack Obama’s Education Secretary said? He commented:
	“U.S. students will need both the hard skills of math and English language arts and science, and the soft employability skills, to thrive in our flattened world.”
	Will the Minister perhaps reconsider things such as the E-bac curriculum for a flattened world rather than continuing with the flat earth views he seems to have had until now?

Nick Gibb: Arne Duncan came to this country to see schools such as Mossbourne academy delivering a very high-quality curriculum. The hon. Gentleman must not confuse the national curriculum with the school curriculum. We do not want to set out every minute of every hour of every day in the national curriculum, which was the approach taken by the previous Government. We should leave it to the professionalism of teachers to determine the school curriculum, which covers issues such as soft skills and ensuring that children have a rounded education and are confident people when they leave school.

Margot James: In conducting his review of the curriculum, will my hon. Friend give consideration to the choices that young people make about GCSE subjects at a young age without having enough information about how those choices might affect their future university aspirations? Will he ask schools to make sure that they are aware of the “Informed Choices” document recently published by Russell group universities?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is a concern that only 8% of young people who qualify for free school meals are even entered for the English baccalaureate subjects and that only 4% achieve the desired results. The Government are determined to close the attainment gap between those from poorer and those from wealthier backgrounds. Taking the right choices at GCSE and A-level is key to ensuring progression either into further and higher education or into successful employment.

Music

Stephen Hepburn: What recent representations he has received on encouraging children to study music.

Michael Gove: We are very lucky that there is so much excellent music teaching in our schools and we are anxious to ensure that it improves even further. That is why we have made £82.5 million available—to make that a reality. In the past few months, we have received almost 4,000 representations on how we can further improve music education.

Stephen Hepburn: As the Secretary of State says, the Government have announced this new system of funding music in schools. If it is, indeed, a bidding system, what assurances can he give to the schools and schoolchildren who will inevitably lose out?

Michael Gove: I do not believe that any school or child will lose out. The hon. Gentleman is very lucky that on his doorstep sits the Sage centre, which is an outstanding exemplar of music education. The funds that we have available and the national music plan that we hope to unveil this autumn will ensure that the already high standards that exist in areas such as south Tyneside are augmented even further in future.

Edward Timpson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent announcement of a national music competition, the “Next BRIT thing”, which is backed by both the
	Government and the UK music industry? Is it not an example of the Government’s commitment to nurturing our future musical talent?

Michael Gove: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend puts his case brilliantly.

History

Stephen Phillips: What recent representations he has received on the teaching of British history to all children of secondary school age.

Nick Gibb: We have received a number of representations about the teaching of history in secondary schools and about the place of British history in the curriculum. In addition, as part of our review of the national curriculum, our recent call for evidence attracted nearly 5,800 responses, of which more than 2,500 related to history.

Stephen Phillips: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. One of the great achievements of the last Conservative Government was ensuring that every child learned some British history before leaving school, but some academies are now designing alternative curricula for pupils who will not achieve a C grade in the English baccalaureate, which may mean that they do not study history at all—at secondary school at least. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to impress on academy head teachers the importance of all children being taught British history?

Nick Gibb: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend about the importance of teaching history in schools, particularly British history, and we know that teachers share this view. Having the flexibility for teachers to be imaginative in how they design the curriculum within a broad and balanced context is a key feature of the academies programme, and the improvements we have seen in academies’ GCSE results suggests that this approach is working well among academies. However, we hope and expect that the curriculum review will deliver a high-quality national curriculum that academies will wish to adopt. It is important that we do not limit aspiration, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, and that is why we will be publishing data specifically about the GCSE results of lower-attaining students on a school-by-school basis.

Tristram Hunt: Can the Minister confirm that the most recent Ofsted report stated that the decline in the teaching of British history was a myth? Is not the real issue that the average 11 to 13-year-old receives only 38 hours of history teaching a year, with academies being among the worst-performing schools in that regard?

Nick Gibb: There is a lot of very high-quality history teaching taking place at both primary and secondary level but we are concerned about the drop in the proportion of young people taking history at GCSE, which fell from 35% of the cohort in 1997 to just 31% in 2009. Addressing that lies at the heart of the reason for introducing the concept of the English baccalaureate.

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Andy Slaughter: What assessment he has made of the effect of changes in funding for Sure Start children’s centres in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

Sarah Teather: The Department for Education does not collect detailed information on Sure Start children’s centres in individual local authorities. Local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that there are sufficient children’s centres in their area to meet local need, so far as is reasonably practicable. It is for local authorities to commission Sure Start children’s centres and to monitor and evaluate the use and impact of their services.

Andy Slaughter: There have been 45% cuts in the Sure Start budget in one year; nine centres deregistering because they have had more than 90% cuts and cannot function; and parents taking and winning judicial reviews to restore a basic service. In February the Minister said that she was monitoring the situation in Hammersmith and Fulham because there were particular concerns. Will she do more than monitor now and take some action while we still have any Sure Start centres left?

Sarah Teather: I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue on many occasions. He may also be aware that last week we announced some changes to the Sure Start programme so that we will be piloting payment by results, for example. We will also require local authorities to publish information about what they are spending and on what services. If local authorities are systematically downgrading services, as he suggests, they will obviously not be eligible to benefit from payment by results, and we will be able to see that clearly from the transparency requirements that we are putting in place.

Greg Hands: The Minister is right to be careful when faced with the wild misrepresentations on the issue from the Opposition Benches. Is she aware that Hammersmith and Fulham council has announced that it is committed not only to maintaining its existing 15 children’s centre venues, but to expanding them by a further one centre?

Sarah Teather: I thank my hon. Friend for making that clear and putting it on the record.

Sharon Hodgson: I know that the Minister wants parents to be more involved in their local children’s centres, but I am not sure that parents taking their council to court is exactly what she meant. Will the Secretary of State and the Ministers accept that it was their choice to slash the funding and remove the ring fence that has led to the present chaos? If so, will they use the imminent early years statement finally to set out how they will keep their promise and the Prime Minister’s numerous promises to protect Sure Start from cuts and closures?

Sarah Teather: That was an awful lot of waffle. [Interruption.] I will have to wait till everybody stops yelling because I have not got enough voice to yell over everybody else today—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Sarah Teather: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) will just have to wait with bated breath for our early years statement, which will be out shortly and in which we will make further announcements about Sure Start and how we intend to improve the quality of early years.

Academies

Bob Blackman: How many schools in (a) Harrow East constituency and (b) England have converted, or applied to convert, to academy status.

Michael Gove: Three high schools in Harrow East have applied to convert to academy status and are aiming to convert in a collaborative partnership with four other high schools in Harrow. A primary school is also aiming to convert in the autumn. More than 1,000 schools in England have applied to convert to academy status since June 2010. The total number of open academies, including those opened under the previous Government, now stands at 801.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate the Secretary of State on leading this quiet revolution in education in this country, freeing schools from the dead hand of local education authorities and allowing them to develop and grow. What role does he foresee local education authorities fulfilling in the future, and what arrangements is he making for the governance of these new schools to enable them to flourish and grow?

Michael Gove: Local authorities have a crucial role to play in education in ensuring fairness of admissions, making sure that the needs of children who have, for example, high-level special educational needs are respected, and making sure that when it comes to behaviour and attendance, there is appropriate collaboration. They also have a critical role to play as champions of excellence. The best local authorities pursue this role with vigour. Not all do, however.

Bursary Scheme

Kerry McCarthy: Whether young people being raised by kinship carers will be eligible for the bursary scheme which will replace education maintenance allowance.

Tim Loughton: The short answer is probably. The long answer is that under the arrangements for the 16 to 19 bursary fund, the most vulnerable young people—young people in care, care leavers, those on income support, and disabled young people in receipt of both employment support allowance and disability living allowance—will receive bursaries of £1,200 a year. Young people being raised by kinship carers may fall into this category, depending on the nature of the placement, and may also receive support from the discretionary funding.

Kerry McCarthy: I am disappointed that the Minister cannot give a more specific response. These carers have stepped up to the plate, often when children have been abandoned or orphaned, and often at great financial and personal cost to themselves. I urge him to listen to organisations such as Kinship Care Alliance and, if the Government are as family-friendly as he will no doubt tell us they are in answering the question, look at families that do not fit the nuclear model and perhaps live in chaotic circumstances, but who still need help?

Tim Loughton: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that kinship carers do a fantastic job, and we want more of them to step up to do it and be supported in that, but it depends on the nature of the placement and whether it is formal or informal. If it is informal, those children and young people will be able to apply for discretionary funding and could end up getting more than they would have done under the old EMA arrangements. We have taken those considerations into account.

Family-friendly Policies

Helen Grant: What steps he is taking to promote family-friendly policies.

Sarah Teather: The Government are committed to promoting family-friendly policies that can support better child outcomes, help parents to balance work and family life and deliver real benefits to employers. The Department is funding a scheme to support organisations to adopt more family-friendly services and working environments for clients and employees. The Government are consulting on proposals to introduce more flexible parental leave and extend the right to flexible working to all employees.

Helen Grant: Lack of good child care can consign many capable women to the family home or to not having children. What action will the Minister take to improve this situation?

Sarah Teather: I am very aware of the difficulties that many families face in accessing suitable child care, which is one of the reasons why we announced last week that we will consult on a more flexible arrangement for adopting the free entitlement so that families can access it a little earlier and a little later in the day, for example. That is exactly why we extended the free entitlement to 15 hours.

Topical Questions

Nicky Morgan: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Michael Gove: I am delighted that my Department, following extremely hard work by the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), and our behaviour adviser Mr Charlie Taylor, has today published new behaviour guidance, which is significantly slimmer, and
	more focused and effective. It has been widely welcomed by teachers as at last getting to grips with the indiscipline in some of our weakest schools.

Nicky Morgan: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. He recently mentioned that there were about 200 failing primary schools in this country, which is a shocking statistic. Although there is no list, I believe that Shelthorpe primary school in my constituency is one of them. When judging whether a school is failing, what allowances are made for pupils with moderate learning difficulties, cases of social deprivation, cases involving social care and the number of free school meals? Also, the school’s head teacher has asked me to invite the Secretary of State to visit the school.

Michael Gove: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. We specifically take into account not just raw attainment, but the level of progress that children are making in school in order to ensure that any judgment is properly contextualised. The 200 weakest schools are those that have been below floor standards for five years. Let me be clear: that means that more than 40% of students leaving those schools over the past four years have been incapable of reading, writing or adding up to an acceptable level. We absolutely need to take action where schools are failing and where communities are aware that those schools are not performing as well as they should be. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will recognise that such action is necessary.

Linda Riordan: Will the Secretary of State reassure the parents, teachers and governors of Moorside school in Halifax that they will get the necessary capital funding for the new build they have been promised for so long, and if so, say when they will get it?

Michael Gove: It is vital to ensure that we have an accurate picture of the schools that are most in need of capital funding. One of the unfortunate consequences of decisions made by the previous Government is that in about 2006 we stopped collecting data at a national level on the state of school buildings, which means that we do not have an accurate picture of the schools that are most in need. The hon. Lady makes a very good case for a school in her constituency, which I know she represents effectively, but we have to look at the picture in the round.

Andrew Turner: Five families have been refused admission to Wootton primary school on the Isle of Wight from the beginning of next term, which means that four-year-olds will have to travel to other schools, the nearest of which is 2.5 miles away. Mothers who want to travel with their child would have to pay for that, assuming that public transport was available. This is a complete scandal. Surely the ridiculous limits on the size of primary schools imposed by the Labour party need to be reconsidered, and before the beginning of next term.

Nick Gibb: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point. It is not the first time that we have received reports of this nature, with families frustrated and confused by an admissions system that is too
	complex and bureaucratic and which effectively rations places in good and popular schools. That is why we are consulting on simpler and fairer admissions systems. The key point is that there are simply not enough good school places, so it was absurd that it was not possible before to raise the number of places in good schools. Increasing the flexibility to do so is therefore a major part of the new admissions code.

Paul Flynn: The baccalaureate’s emphasis on ancient history and Latin will allow our students to cope admirably with the Roman invasion 2,000 years ago, but leave them less able to cope with modern life, because of the neglect of IT. In which century are the Government living?

Michael Gove: It is a source of considerable pride to me that the number of students studying Latin in comprehensives is the highest ever. We are presiding over the greatest renaissance in Latin learning since Julius Caesar invaded. [ Interruption. ] Those who are about to answer should be saluted, as we say in Latin. The critical thing is that we have to ensure that our examinations in every subject are up there with the best in the world. It is striking that before he went to university, one of the iconic figures of the 21st century—Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook—studied Latin, Greek and classical Hebrew.

Peter Bone: I recently met parents who send their children to Sceptre school, a Christian-based independent school that has decided to apply for free school status. They said:
	“Overall, we will be able to enrich the choice and diversity that will, in turn, drive up standards and increase opportunities.”
	Is that not an example of the Conservative-led Government delivering?

Michael Gove: I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the enormous interest in our free school programme. Everyone from former advisers in Tony Blair’s No. 10 through to figures from grass-roots faith organisations has embraced that reform. I fear that the only people who are still standing against that wave of the future are the isolated and neolithic figures of the Labour Front Bench.

Dennis Skinner: The Secretary of State knows that one of the neediest schools that he has to deal with—and it was described as a compelling case by one of his junior Ministers—is Tibshelf, which was built before the first world war. Pit props are holding up part of the roof, and teachers have to tramp between one school and another to keep the show on the road. When is the Secretary of State going to give the Tibshelf people a chance to have their new school built?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman is a consistent and effective campaigner on behalf of the parents, children and teachers of Tibshelf school, and I congratulate them on having such an impassioned defender. However, that school is in such poor repair because, under 13 years of Labour rule, money was wasted. It did not go to the front line, and the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, like
	many poorer students around the country, were failed by an arrogant, unaccountable and out-of-touch Labour Government.

Mel Stride: The Sutton Trust has recently stated that under the previous Government, between 2007 and 2009, a group of 2,000 secondary schools and sixth-form colleges sent fewer pupils to Oxford and Cambridge than just five of our leading independent schools. Will my right hon. Friend join me in deploring that situation, and will he set out what this Government are going to do to put that record right?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that social mobility went backwards under Labour. Poorer students had a better chance of going to university before the Labour Government came to power than after they left office. We are changing that, and we are making sure that with increased investment through the pupil premium, higher standards in the English baccalaureate and a remorseless drive to get the best possible teachers into the classroom, standards rise for the poorest. It is a great pity that the once so-called party of progress is standing in the way of that necessary reform.

Lisa Nandy: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), Ministers repeated the confusion about who will, or will not, be eligible for education maintenance allowance. Given the overwhelming evidence that young people need to know whether they will receive EMA so that they can make a decision to go to college, will the Government think again?

Michael Gove: I am grateful for the point that the hon. Lady makes. We are doing everything possible to ensure that the replacement for education maintenance allowance, the discretionary learner support fund, is in place as soon as possible. We had consultations with college principals who said that while they accepted that these were straitened times, they would prefer to have discretion over how that funding was allocated, and we are happy to accede to that general advice.

Duncan Hames: At Frogwell primary school in Chippenham I have seen for myself the success of the Every Child Counts drive for early intervention to aid numeracy in Wiltshire schools. How does the Secretary of State propose to monitor the take-up of such programmes now that the budgets that pay for them have been delegated to schools themselves?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Catch-up programmes in numeracy and literacy are hugely important. That is why we are making sure that in our reform of the accountability measures for all schools we take account not only of the raw attainment at the end of primary school but of how children do, particularly when they are from poorer backgrounds or have low levels of prior attainment. It is not for us to prescribe exactly the method, but it is for us to ensure that the poorest are better served.

Emma Reynolds: Can the Education Secretary confirm that the objective of his schools reforms, particularly the introduction of free schools, is to provide an over-supply of schools, thereby inevitably setting some schools up for failure? Has he made an assessment of the costs and upheaval that that will generate?

Michael Gove: That is an interesting ideological take, but I am afraid that the hon. Lady is wrong. If she wants to talk about setting schools up for failure, she should look at the at last 200 underperforming primary schools that we were discussing earlier. Free schools will introduce innovation and higher standards to some of the areas that are desperately in need of new schools. They will also ensure that the growth in pupil population at primary, for which the previous Government failed to prepare adequately, is at last addressed with innovative new schools in the places that count.

Charlie Elphicke: How can parents of children with special needs be more involved in the education of their children? I recently met parents at Ripplevale school in my constituency who say that they must not only battle the difficulties and challenges that are obvious to all but battle the education authority, time and again, to get a fair, decent and proper education for their children.

Sarah Teather: We finished our consultation on the Green Paper on 30 June and received 2,300 responses along similar lines to those my hon. Friend has outlined. I feel very passionately about the need to involve parents better, particularly if their child has special educational needs. That is one of the reasons we are rolling out Achievement for All—a programme that does exactly that.

David Hanson: When do Ministers expect to come to a conclusion with the devolved Administrations on the replacement for the child trust fund for looked-after children, which was promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer some months ago but which, as far as I can see, is still yet to reach its final stages?

Tim Loughton: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that over the past few weeks a lot of discussions have been going on between the Treasury, ourselves, some of the charities involved and hon. Members who have brought these proposals forward. There are a number of practical problems that we have to overcome to make sure that we get the most cost-effective scheme that has the biggest impact for those who most need it, but I can assure him that it is going to happen.

Matthew Hancock: May I commend strongly to the Secretary of State the proposal for a free school at Breckland school in Brandon—a middle school that was set for closure under the previous Administration? If that happened, there would be no post-11 education in Brandon, but if it gets the go-ahead as a free school there will be
	education all the way up to 16. That will have a massively positive impact on the community, and I hope that he will commend it.

Michael Gove: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I remind the House that topical questions and answers are supposed to be brief.

Michael Gove: That was a very effective pitch from a very effective Back Bencher.

Meg Munn: I agree with the Secretary of State’s aim to raise standards in primary schools. Will he therefore meet me to discuss why he is seeking to remove the outstanding leadership of a primary school in my constituency that has been praised by his permanent secretary and has this year taken children above floor standards, and where his proposals threaten to make the situation much worse?

Michael Gove: I will be delighted to meet the hon. Lady.

Marcus Jones: Over recent weeks, I have seen many parents in my constituency surgery who are extremely unhappy because they could not get their sons and daughters into the schools of their choice. What can my right hon. Friend do to end this school place lottery and get more good school places in my constituency?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend raises a good point, which is a major concern of this Government. More than one in six parents have children who are not offered a place at their preferred school. That has led to 85,000 appeals. We are reviewing the admissions process, which is far too complex to understand and administer. One of the proposals is to allow good schools to raise the pupil admissions number. We have had a very good response to the consultation so far and will announce our response in due course.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is much better when the hon. Gentleman addresses the House. We always look forward to that.

Nicholas Dakin: It appears that the 16 to 19 funding consultation for 2013-14 will not be published until September at the earliest. Will the Secretary of State take steps to ensure that that does not delay the publication of information about the 2012-13 budgets for schools and colleges?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman was a great FE principal and is a superb advocate for further education. We will do everything we can to accelerate this process.

Karl McCartney: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the five schools in my city of Lincoln constituency that have converted into academies, the latest being Ermine primary school? Does he agree that academy status can bring significant benefits to schools across England by providing them with greater freedoms, rather than top-down bureaucracy, as was witnessed under the previous Labour Government?

Michael Gove: That question was epigrammatically brilliant and requires no further elucidation from me, other than to say, “Hear! Hear!”

Mr Speaker: Order. I must say that as a quick learner, the Secretary of State is proving to be exemplary, and the House is grateful to him.

Pat Glass: Every head teacher and teacher I have spoken to dislikes and has enormous disrespect for the E-bac. I have not come across a single educationalist who supports the Secretary of State. It is causing chaos at key stage 4 and in our schools. Is that what he meant by giving more power and autonomy to teachers?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady is assiduous, but she has not yet talked to the head teacher of the best school
	in County Durham, Durham Johnston comprehensive school, who backs the E-bac, as do all the great head teachers to whom I have spoken recently.

Bob Russell: Further to Question 13, successive Governments have failed on one area of music. Will the current Secretary of State for Education do something to promote English folk dance and song?

Michael Gove: Oscar Wilde once said that one should try everything in life once apart from folk dancing and incest. I think that he was only 50% right.

Mr Speaker: Order. We always go away from listening to the Secretary of State not only entertained, but improved. We are grateful to him.

Open Public Services White Paper

Oliver Letwin: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the open public services White Paper.
	There could not be a more important issue than this. Public services save lives, rescue people from disease and ignorance, and protect people from crime and poverty. Much of what is done by our public services is fantastic and they are among the best in the world, but we can do even better. This Government have a vision, which is set out in this White Paper, about how we can do better.
	The central point is that when public services are not up to scratch, those who are well off can pay for substitutes, but for those who are not well off, there is no opportunity to pay for substitutes. We need to give everybody the same choice in and power over the services they receive that well-off people already have. This White Paper sets out how we will put that vision of choice and power for all into practice.
	Our principles are clear. They are choice, decentralisation, diversity, fair access and accountability. We will increase choice wherever possible; power will be decentralised to the lowest appropriate level; public services will be open to a diverse range of providers; we will ensure that there is fair access and fair funding for all; and services will be accountable to users and taxpayers.
	I will give examples of how those principles will apply in specific public services that cater for specific individuals. First, we will ensure that every adult receiving social care has an individual, personal budget by 2013, and we are moving towards personal budgets in chronic health care, for children with special needs, and in housing for vulnerable people. That means that there will be more choice and power for people who need those services. They will be able to choose what their money and the taxpayer’s money is spent on.
	Secondly, we are making funding follow the pupil in schools, the student in further education, the child in child care and the patient in the NHS. That means that there will be more choice and power for people who need those services. They will be able to choose where the money is spent.
	Thirdly, we are providing fair access so that, for example, a pupil premium follows pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds and a health premium is paid to the local authorities that achieve the greatest improvements in public health for people in the least healthy parts of the country. We attach huge importance to that agenda. We want genuine equality of opportunity and genuine social mobility.
	Fourthly, we are providing open access to data so that people can make informed choices about the services they use, such as crime maps, so that people can see whether the local police are preventing crime in their street; health outcomes, so that people can see which hospitals and GPs achieve the best results; standardised satisfaction data for all public services, so that people can see exactly which service providers are providing the quality of service they want; and open, real-time data on road conditions, speeds and accidents along our motorways, so that people can make informed choices.
	Fifthly, we will provide a new system of redress, through beefed-up powers of the ombudsmen to step in when a choice to which people have a right is denied. However, we are going further than that. We are not only concerned about increased choice and power for individuals, we are also determined to increase choice and power for communities so that they can determine how money is spent on their communal public services. We will do that by making it far easier for communities to take over and run public assets and assets of community value, by giving them the right to build houses for their own children and by giving parish councils and community groups the right to challenge, enabling them to take over local services and making it easier for people to form neighbourhood councils where there are none at present. We will also give neighbourhoods vastly more power to determine their own neighbourhood planning and the ability to challenge the local police at beat meetings, informed by crime maps. Let us remember that the people at those meetings will each be electors of the local police commissioner.
	We recognise, of course, that some services will inevitably continue to be commissioned centrally, or by various levels of local government. Here, too, we are aiming at decentralisation, diversity and accountability. The White Paper sets out how we will use payment by results to transform welfare to work, the rehabilitation of offenders, drug and alcohol recovery, help for children in the foundation years and support for vulnerable adults. In all those areas, a diverse range of providers will be given a huge incentive to provide the social gains that our society so desperately needs by being rewarded for getting people into work, out of crime, off drugs and alcohol and into the opportunities that most of us take for granted.
	To strengthen accountability, the White Paper also sets out the most radical programme of transparency for Government and the public sector anywhere in the world. To unlock innovation, the White Paper commits us to diversity of provision, removing barriers to entry, stimulating entry by new types of provider and unlocking new sources of capital. To ensure that public sector providers can hold their own on a level playing field, the White Paper sets out measures to liberate public sector bodies from red tape.
	To encourage employee ownership within the public services, the White Paper sets out the measures that we are taking to promote mutualisation and employee co-operatives. To ensure that services continue if particular service providers fail, it sets out the principles for the continuity regimes that we are establishing service by service. [Interruption.] Marxist or not Marxist, in the past 13 months this Government have done more to increase choice and power for those served by our public services than the Labour party achieved in 13 years. The White Paper describes the comprehensive, consistent, coherent approach that we are taking to keep our public services moving in the direction of increased choice and power for service users, so that we can provide access to excellence for all. That is the aim behind the White Paper, and I commend it to the House.

Tessa Jowell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in providing me with a copy of his statement ahead of time. I have to say that although I believe absolutely his
	sincerity in what he has told the House, his comparison with the Labour Government wins the parliamentary prize for blooming cheek, if that is not unparliamentary language. I would rather rely on the judgment of Reform, the right-of-centre think tank, about these proposals. It states:
	“The Coalition may argue that these inconsistencies”
	in the White Paper
	“are good politics. In fact they are bad politics because they undermine confidence that the Government is serious about reform.”
	That is the problem, because there is nothing new in this White Paper.
	Today’s statement is typical of the Government’s approach to policy in general. As the right hon. Gentleman reflected, our public services, on which people of all ages in our country depend and which are often the determinant of whether their life is worth living, face significant challenges, particularly at the hands of the Tory-led coalition, which is making cuts too far and too fast. People live much longer and have ever-rising expectations, but it appears from the way in which this White Paper was launched that the Cabinet Office is more preoccupied with spin and presentation than in substantive proposals.
	The White Paper contains few new ideas and even fewer new proposals. In most of the cases to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the Government are lagging behind the action of the previous Labour Government. He referred to personal budgets. The Sunday Times was told several weeks ago that the right to a personal budget, which is now used by approximately 250,000 adults, was to be extended to those with long-term conditions and to children with special needs, yet there is nothing of that in the White Paper. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the expansion of mutuals, which was also showcased in a variety of this weekend’s newspapers. Back in November, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General undertook to put in place rights to provide for public sector workers, meaning that they could take over the running of services, but no time scale for such proposals has been forthcoming.
	Ahead of today’s White Paper, I set out three tests for public service reform. First, will the reforms make services more accountable and responsive to the needs of service users? Secondly, will there be clear accountability for how public money is spent, and will members of the public be protected? Thirdly and finally, will the proposals strengthen the bonds of family and community life?
	The Government are failing the test of reform, because their policies are inconsistent between Departments and sometimes within them, and nothing more has been done to put communities in control or to make people more powerful.
	My questions to the Minister, therefore, are these. Given that this much-trumpeted and much-awaited White Paper has not even caught up with the legacy of the previous Labour Government, who deleted the ambition from it: the officials or the Liberal Democrats? What are the plans for millions of people to become their own bosses, as was set out in the coalition document? What assurance does he give to those workers that there will be continuity of pensions and employment benefits?
	When will the coalition Government exceed and expand the proposals already put in place for personal budgets by the previous Labour Government? He may have received private advice that hospitals and schools should be allowed to fail, but will he make it absolutely clear, and publicly, that he will not allow that to happen? In the funding of those new services, will he also rule out competition by price?
	To return to reform, viewed as a whole, the Government’s public service reform policies are all over the place. The Government’s failure to adhere consistently to their principles gives an air of unreality to the whole programme. The losers will not be the Members of this House, or even members of the Government, but the millions of people up and down the country whose quality of life depends on the public services that they use.

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her critique, but I think she has to decide whether her objection is that the White Paper does not do as many of the things that the previous Labour Government were doing already—that was part of what she seemed to be arguing—or that the proposals will do damage. If she is maintaining both positions, she must be admitting that the Labour Government did great damage, which I doubt is what she wants to admit.
	To some degree, the White Paper continues where the previous Labour Government left off—they did some things that we think were good and which we are carrying through, evolving and developing. That is a sensible and, I hope the House will agree, grown-up way of conducting politics because not everything our opponents think or do is necessarily wrong. However, the White Paper carries the previous Government’s programme much further, deeper and wider to deal with the very questions that the right hon. Lady addressed. For example, under the previous Administration, there was no proper system for continuity of service. One reason for the problems with Southern Cross—a legacy issue left by the previous Government—is that the previous Government did not design proper continuity-of-service regimes for the health and social care services. We are now attempting to design such regimes for all services. I hope that on mature reflection she will welcome that.
	The right hon. Lady asked whether we would accept competition by price, which we have made abundantly clear we will not accept, including in the NHS. We want competition by quality, which is very different, although I assume she would agree that it makes sense to accept competition partly by price when trying, as the Government are doing, to tender through central procurement. That is certainly something that the previous Government did all the time. There are differences here, but they do not amount to inconsistencies; they amount to a coherent attempt to apply a set of principles differently in different services precisely because different services demand different treatments. She must know that. If she is claiming that much of this depends on what the Labour Government did, I would point out that they certainly did different things in different places. The White Paper is about carrying forward a programme that will benefit those using public services by giving them choice and power.

Peter Lilley: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on basing his reforms on the admirable principles of choice and of
	giving people the information to make informed choices and, where possible, a diversity of providers to choose between? Choice is good not only for the people making the choice, but for the vast majority who will not exercise that choice but will see the quality of services rise under the influence of choice. However, may I caution him about trying to shoe-horn too many services under one elegant, all-embracing umbrella? Experience shows that it is better to do it section by section, service by service, because the real world is never as elegant as one’s intellectual constructions.

Oliver Letwin: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, which is why the White Paper specifically makes clear not only that we will treat individual services differently from community services and services commissioned centrally, but that we will take each service on its own merits and design a regime that applies the general principles differently. That is clearly the right way to go. However, his point is vital. The purpose of giving choice and power to individuals and communities is not just to benefit the particular individuals making the choices; it is to benefit everybody by ensuring that those choices are brought to bear in a way that improves services for all.

Hazel Blears: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am a long-standing supporter of decentralisation and involving more local people in their public services. His White Paper and previous statements have made much of involving social enterprises and charities and the third sector in the provision of public services. On that basis, will he confirm that there will be an asset lock when services are transferred, particularly to social enterprises, to ensure that the organisations carrying out these services are genuine social enterprises? If he really means what he says, why have 90% of major contracts for the Work programme gone to big companies such as Serco, Capita and G4S, leaving the social enterprise sector and charities to pick up the crumbs from the table?

Oliver Letwin: In answer to the right hon. Lady’s first point, I would say that when assets are being transferred provision needs to be made to ensure that they are there for the public good and on a permanent basis. We intend to do that in every case in which it applies. On her point about the Work programme, I think she is missing a vital component of what the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who has responsibility for employment, has done. It is a textbook case: he was concerned that not all the bids would come from consortia in the voluntary and community sector—only a few did—so he took steps to create a protocol relating the prime contractor to the subcontractors, as a result of which the prime contractors have to treat properly the small voluntary and community bodies that in many cases are also the subcontractors. We desperately need—and intend—to get that into the mainstream of how the Government go about business.

Stephen Dorrell: In welcoming this White Paper, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that one of its key foundations is the doctrine that information is power, and that if we want to make public services really accountable to the people
	who use them and pay for them, we will have to learn the new discipline of telling sometimes uncomfortable truths about those areas in which public services do not live up to the standards that we all want to see? That is what Mr Gorbachev used to call “glasnost”. May we have a policy of glasnost in our public services?

Oliver Letwin: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that glasnost has to precede and accompany perestroika; we cannot have reconstruction, or proper choice, without transparency. That is why we have put in place exactly what he recommends—namely, a transparency regime that will in many cases cause difficulties and embarrassments for the Government. That will be worth bearing, however, to achieve real improvement. I shall give my right hon. Friend an example. In the past, there were many people, not only Labour Members but among the public at large, who said that crime maps would have no real effect and that no one would be interested in them. However, millions of people have now started using crime maps. When we also give those people the right to use beat meetings and make them electors of locally elected police commissioners, we shall be transferring power from the central state out to the people who are being served. That is a very powerful combination.

Glenda Jackson: Is not this White Paper the somewhat unfortunate offspring of the Minister’s previous passionately held ambition to privatise the world and the first Thatcherite attempt to take away power from local authorities, which resulted in all in-house services being taken away from local political power and brought absolute chaos for those who were dependent on those services? As he has clearly not learned from those previous mistakes, how can he possibly guarantee that the same chaos will not ensue once this White Paper goes through?

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Lady has to deal with a question between herself and her own Front Bench. She will have noticed that the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) made it clear that she thought that our proposals lagged behind what the last Labour Government had already tried to do. I do not think that the last Labour Government would ever have accused themselves of trying to privatise everything in sight. If the Opposition are saying that the White Paper continues measures that the last Labour Government were doing, they cannot possibly accuse us of trying to privatise everything in sight. Nor would it be sensible to privatise everything in that way. The White Paper makes it absolutely clear throughout that we are neutral as between public sector providers, voluntary sector providers, community groups, mutuals, co-operatives and the private sector. I hope that we will eventually get over this absurd ideological divide, because we want something very simple—namely, the best service for the person who is using it. We do not care who provides the best service; we just want to ensure that the best service is always available and that people have a choice between providers so that they can get it. I would have thought that that would join the two sides of the House.

Conor Burns: Between 1997 and 2010, there was a 57% real-terms increase in public spending, but there was no such corresponding
	increase in productivity in the public sector. How does my right hon. Friend envisage his plans increasing productivity and delivering greater value for money, including for our taxpayers in Dorset?

Oliver Letwin: I am delighted to help out my hon. Friend and Dorset colleague on this. What he says is absolutely true: there was a vast increase in spending on public services during the last Government. Alas, the improvements in the outcomes were not as great as the inputs. That is precisely what we are trying to tackle, and we are doing it in an age-old way, by introducing innovation and diversity of supply, as well as choice and power for the people using the services, so that there is real pressure on all providers to improve. We need continuous pressure for improvement and continuous transparency on whether the services are improving, as well as a continuous ability for people who find a service being provided better elsewhere to choose the best service. Those are the methods that always improve quality.

Michael Weir: Most of the examples that the Minister has given are devolved, although he did mention welfare to work. He may know that there is concern in many rural and remote communities about the ability of alternative providers to deliver services. Can he at least give us an assurance that such change will not be driven through for purely ideological reasons where there is clearly no infrastructure to support alternative deliverers?

Oliver Letwin: Yes, in the sense that this White Paper sets out a programme not to enforce diversity of provision, but to enable it. If the community wishes to leave a particular service that is provided by only one provider where it is, that will be for the community to judge. If the community believes that in some cases it is worth having a diversity of suppliers, that is what the community will be able to do. I am speaking now about areas that are mainly devolved, as the hon. Gentleman said; hence, I am speaking about England. I leave it to him and his colleagues to deal with those in Scotland. In the case of the Work programme, there is a diversity of suppliers; indeed, there had to be, in order to create competitive pressure to ensure that those who succeed also succeed in being paid, and that those who do not succeed are quickly replaced by those who will, because it is a payment-by-results programme and the aim is to get people back to work. We want the providers that are best at getting people back to work to be those that remain in business.

Bernard Jenkin: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the excellent White Paper, which lays such emphasis on choice for individuals in the type of public services they wish to have. Does he agree that we cannot say that we are in favour of choice and then insist that a particular service be run by a monopolistic local authority? Nor can we say that we are against competition if we are also complaining about too much public procurement going to large private sector companies that were in favour of more competition, not less.

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend is right that we have to maintain consistency. If we are going to achieve real choice and real power for those who are served by public services, we have to allow for diversity of provision and to be on our guard always to ensure that those who can enter the market are able to do so. That is one reason why the White Paper contains specific provisions for redress where particular providers find that they are being kept out of the market. One of the techniques that we are using for doing that was developed by the previous Government. The competition and co-operation panel and its rules, which were set up by the last Labour Government, will apply in the NHS. That is the right kind of system, and we need to replicate it in a whole series of other domains where diverse providers currently have no redress if they are prevented from entering the market.

Nick Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman made a lot in his speech of the potential for local community groups to take over assets of community value and seize control of planning in their areas. He will be aware that there are community groups in various areas of the country—I would remind him of the route of High Speed 2—that are not necessarily in favour of development and may wish to use enhanced powers to stop it. He will also be conscious that the Chancellor said in his Budget speech that in such instances of national economic development interest, the default planning position should be to say yes. Who will prevail in a conflict between a community wanting to stop a development and the Chancellor wanting it to proceed?

Oliver Letwin: The right hon. Gentleman is too much of an expert to need me to tell him this, but I will tell him because he asks for it. We have, of course, established a two-level system. For most planning decisions, we hope that the neighbourhood will take charge by engaging in neighbourhood planning. We believe that the incentives that we have built into the financial system—including the ability to get a meaningful proportion of the community infrastructure levy paid to the neighbourhood if it has more housing and development in its area—will lead neighbourhoods on the whole to prefer development. The presumption of sustainable development means that their neighbourhood plans will have to include development of an appropriate kind in order to pass muster. There will be an assessment of local housing need that contributes to that, which plans will have to observe.
	However, nobody is going to pretend in our Government, any more than in the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, that any neighbourhood will welcome a nuclear power station just next to it or a railway line running straight through it. Of course there will be objections in those cases, which is why we have maintained and democratised the very system that he and his colleagues set up—because they, too, operated a two-level system—in order to accelerate planning applications for major pieces of national infrastructure. There is no disagreement between us and the right hon. Gentleman on that, and there is no reason for him to invent one.

Mr Speaker: Order. As befits a distinguished former philosophy don, the Minister much enjoys conducting a Socratic dialogue with the House, and we all invariably
	feel enriched by it, but in the interests of time, we should be grateful for the abridged version.

Dan Rogerson: I very much welcome what we have heard about employee involvement in the running of organisations, and mutuality is a subject that my party has advocated for a long time. I also welcome the greater role for parish councils in local services. I am concerned, however, about local assets being run by community groups and the accountability of that mechanism. Will the Minister ensure that, as these proposals move forward, accountability lies at the heart of any change?

Oliver Letwin: Yes, we will.

Frank Roy: One danger of welfare to work is that people can be put into jobs for which they are totally unsuited. How long will these people need to stay in work before their providers are paid for the result of their efforts in finding them a job?

Oliver Letwin: The Work programme sets out a series of staged payments made to the providers when they get people into work. Full payment is made only if they keep those people in work over a sustained period. There is a huge incentive for each provider to find people work only of a kind that they will wish to remain in for the long term.

Peter Bone: The Government should be congratulated on bringing forward a genuine Conservative proposal. Was the Minister advised by his civil servants that this policy was both brave and courageous and is there a danger that the Government will row back from this as the years go on?

Oliver Letwin: No, there is no danger that the Government will row back from this as the years go on. I can tell my hon. Friend that I have received a great deal of advice—some of it highly constructive and some of it not at all constructive—as has my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Secretary, with whom I have worked closely on producing this White Paper.

Tony Lloyd: Using the example of Southern Cross, on which a statement should have been made today, will the Minister tell us clearly what the White Paper says about market failure? The Government have been absolutely silent about market failure in this public service, as a result of which literally thousands of elderly people are now concerned about where they will spend their future.

Oliver Letwin: As I said in my opening remarks, Southern Cross is a clear case of a legacy failure from the last Government, because the arrangements under which Southern Cross operated—[Interruption.] There is no point in Labour Members denying this; the arrangements under which it operated were set up during the previous Administration. There is a serious point of public policy here, which is that a proper continuity regime was not established in the national health service or the social care system by the previous Government. I admit that this also applies to Governments before that, but it now needs to be cured. That is why we set out in this White
	Paper a series of principles that will govern the continuity regimes that we will set up to make sure that when individual providers fail, the people using the service have continuity in respect of it. We are fulfilling that same principle in what we are doing now to ensure that every single person looked after by Southern Cross continues to receive continuity of care.

Robert Halfon: I welcome the White Paper in putting some flesh on the bones of the big society. Does my right hon. Friend agree that for the big society to work, it has to support the little society? Will he make sure that the community groups up for tender are not accessed only by the big Tesco campaigning charities so that genuinely local and grass-roots organisations will have an equal chance?

Oliver Letwin: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is indeed a point we make very forcefully in the White Paper. It is our intention that a local community group should be able to get to work and do things itself either in its own local neighbourhood or as a service provider to individuals on its own basis in its own way. The means we use to achieve that is ensuring that, if the little providers are excluded from entry to the open opportunities we are creating, they will have redress.

Sheila Gilmore: If local communities within a city or town decide that they want to take over the local park, how will the budgets be set, will they increase over time, and what will happen in respect of the possible residualisation of, say, the 50% of parks for which a viable service can no longer be run?

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Lady appears to think that we are talking about amounts of money here, but what we are talking about is how the same amount of money is used. Whatever amount of money is being spent at the moment on a park, we say that the locals should have the right to challenge and to be able to take over the park if they can provide a proper way of running it themselves for the same amount of money—neither more nor less. I would have thought that the hon. Lady would share that ambition with me; it will not cause the problem she alludes to.

Steven Baker: I congratulate the Government on picking up the best of the Blair legacy for the purposes of these reforms. Like the Minister, I noted the observation of the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) that there was nothing new in the White Paper. What consideration have the Government given to the role of trade unions as providers and enablers, and does the Minister believe that they could provide such services for their members?

Oliver Letwin: I hope very much that trade unions will play a role. In conjunction with Cabinet colleagues, I am holding a series of meetings with public service unions to discuss how they can help to design some of the details of the reforms so that they will work better.

Andrew Love: The White Paper includes a commitment to promoting mutuals and co-operatives, but, as many Labour Members have pointed out, the rhetoric does not quite match the reality. The reality is that the diversity of which the
	right hon. Gentleman talks does not include alternative structures. What will he do to enable mutuals and co-operatives to compete for public services on a level playing field with all the other organisations?

Oliver Letwin: The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), is taking a series of steps not just to enable, but to promote mutualisation and co-operatives across the whole range of public services. [Interruption.] I beg the hon. Gentleman to give us a little time. That action is already beginning to work, and I think that in four years’ time he will see a vast field of mutuals and co-operatives working constructively throughout public services.
	We want to be strictly neutral. We want to favour providers of all kinds—mutuals, co-operatives, voluntary sector organisations, community groups, private sector bodies and, of course, the public sector itself—if they can provide the best possible services for users of those services. That is our aim.

Jesse Norman: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on employee ownership, I congratulate the Government on the White Paper. Might some thought be given—in addition to an asset lock—to the provision of a golden share in some of these enterprises? By giving some scope and protection in the short term, might that not allow more of them to be transferred into the mutual and employee-owned sectors?

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend makes a good and interesting point, and there may well be cases in which that is the appropriate method. I know that he is a serious student of these matters. Perhaps when he has had time to read the White Paper, he would like to discuss where that idea might apply. We are certainly more than willing to entertain it.

Phil Wilson: The Minister said in his statement that the White Paper “sets out the most radical programme of transparency for Government and the public sector anywhere in the world.” Will that apply to private sector companies and other organisations that might end up running public services?

Oliver Letwin: It will apply to every public service provider, regardless of sector. We are interested not in who the provider is, but in whether the service provided is a good one. In every instance we will be totally transparent about the quality of services, and will enable people to make choices on that basis. If the private sector cannot match the voluntary or public sector, people will choose to take the offerings of one of those sectors, and that is as it should be.

Neil Carmichael: I welcome the statement and the White Paper, and note the already enthusiastic interest in these matters in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that the transition from ideas to action will be best effected through co-operation and partnership between providers, professionals and users?

Oliver Letwin: I think that my hon. Friend will be proved right in many cases. I hope that he will encourage just such co-operation in his constituency, as I will in mine. If there are any instances in which he feels that we could assist that process, we should be more than delighted to meet him and discuss how we can do so.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Minister has made much of transparency and accountability, but if data are to enable citizens to hold public bodies to account they must be accessible in a consistent form, as, for example, crime maps are. What central guidance will the Minister establish to ensure that citizens have access to data so that they can hold public bodies to account?

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Consumers, patients, pupils and all the other users of services cannot possibly be expected to make the choices we are going to enable them to make on an informed basis unless there are standardised data. That is why we are going to produce standardised satisfaction data in each public service so—[Interruption.] Yes, so people can see what is being provided and how happy, or unhappy, people are with the results. For example, patient-reported outcomes in the NHS are a vital component in patients making choices about where to go for their treatment, but information on that has been lagging for years. I know the previous Government were in principle in favour of that, but we will now bring them into action across the public services, as well as objective data in standardised form.

John Howell: May I refer back to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell)? I used to advise the Gorbachev Government on glasnost and perestroika, and what was missing then was innovation from the grass roots up. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister therefore say a little more about the extent of the innovation that he is expecting to come from this?

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is no point in a system that does not allow genuine innovation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) rightly made it clear in a previous question that the recent productivity record of the public services has been lamentable; their productivity has not increased commensurately with the increase in investment. Part of the reason for that is lack of innovation. In the most effective services across the world, there is continuous innovation, and that often comes from new small entrants. That is why the thrust of the White Paper is to promote and enlarge the scope for new entrants with new ideas to create innovations and more productive methods of doing things, which will, of course, result in the public’s money being used better in providing the services people want.

John Pugh: It was an interesting statement, but is not the danger that the Government may get a great reputation for reorganising public services rather than actually running them? Why cannot the Government concentrate on the boring, unglamorous job of promoting efficient, accountable management? Indeed, the word “management” was curiously missing from the statement.

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend is right in that I cannot recall a single instance in the White Paper of our referring to ourselves as “managing” public services. That is because we do not think Ministers are particularly good at managing things. We think Ministers and Governments are better at creating frameworks within which others, who are professionals, can manage things and be given the incentives to manage them best for those whom they are serving.

Stuart Andrew: During my time working in the hospice movement, I witnessed time and again that the independence of hospices enabled them to provide first-class care, and that parents of children in hospices would often say that they had set the benchmark for the care they had received. Will not the freeing up of public services from the Whitehall grasp enable them to learn from the hospice movement and provide first-class public services in this country?

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hospice movement provides an admirable example of much that is best about public service in our country, and we do, indeed, want to learn from it in many respects. We are, of course, trying to ensure that the method for funding the hospice movement always preserves its independence and ability to carry on providing the unbelievably good service it currently provides.

Duncan Hames: I am glad to hear the Minister’s commitment to open data in improving public services, but he should beware of handing it over to organisations that treat public information as a commercial asset. Is he aware of the obstacles that Network Rail and train operators raise to thwart volunteers working with real-time train running data, despite their own dependence on public subsidy? Will he demand open access to that data, to promote service innovation?

Oliver Letwin: Yes, it is our intention to open access to data and not simply to leave that as a proprietary matter. That is absolutely vital.

Mary Macleod: I welcome the White Paper. As the funding will be following the child, the student and the patient, does my right hon. Friend agree that as well as giving more choice and power, money will be focused where there is real excellence in these sectors?

Oliver Letwin: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we are about is trying to improve public services for all. By giving people choice and power, we enable the money to be focused, as she rightly says, on the places that are seen to be best by the service users, thereby increasing the proportion of public services that are excellent and gradually dragging up the average. Of course we also want to make sure that we do not have any coasting or substandard services, so she will also find that the White Paper contains a series of measures precisely to target providers that are consistently failing or consistently mediocre.

James Morris: Last Friday, I met representatives of a number of voluntary organisations across the black country. Does the Minister agree that it is precisely those groups that we need to energise to get involved in improving the delivery of public services in my constituency?

Oliver Letwin: I do agree with my hon. Friend. It is vital that we energise the voluntary and community sector now, and the White Paper will show the sector a huge path forward. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), who has responsibility for civil society and who was here a moment or two ago, will shortly say more to the voluntary sector about the opportunities that the open public services White Paper framework provides for it.

Philip Hollobone: What opportunities will these proposals present to the more than 25 parish and town councils in my constituency to take over public services provided by the borough and county councils, either by themselves or together with other local groups?

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point and he will find in the White Paper that there is precisely the intention to give parish councils and neighbourhood councils, as they arise in places that do not currently have parish councils, much more ability to take over services and run them on behalf of local people. If he would like to discuss how we can take that forward, I am sure that, like me, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who has responsibility for decentralisation, would be delighted to discuss that with him.

Phone Hacking and the Media

Jeremy Hunt: May I start by apologising to the Leader of the Opposition for the fact that he has only just received a copy of this statement? As he will find out, there was a development only about a half an hour ago that dramatically changed the contents of this statement—I have only just received my own copy—which is why we were not able to get him a copy in advance. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear the statement and I am sure that the House wants to hear it.

Jeremy Hunt: Mr Speaker, the events of last week shocked the nation. Our proud tradition of journalism, which for centuries has bravely held those in positions of power to account, was shaken by the revelation of what we now know to have happened at the News of the World. The perpetrators of those acts not only broke the law, but preyed on the grief of families who had lost loved ones either as a result of foul murders or giving their life for their country. I hope that the law shows no mercy to those responsible and no mercy to any managers who condoned such appalling behaviour.
	As a result of what happened, the Prime Minister last week announced two independent inquiries to examine what went wrong and recommend to the Government how we can make sure that it never happens again. The first will be a full, judge-led, public inquiry into the original police investigation. Witnesses will be questioned under oath and no stone will be left unturned. As the Prime Minister announced on Friday, that inquiry will need to answer the following questions. Why did the first police investigation fail? What exactly was going on at the News of the World , and what was going on at other newspapers? The bulk of the work of this inquiry can happen only after the police investigation has finished, but we will start what we can now.
	The second will be a separate inquiry to look at the culture, practices and ethics of the British press. In particular, it will look at how our newspapers are regulated and make recommendations for the future. That inquiry should start as soon as possible, ideally this summer. As the Prime Minister said, a free press is an essential component of our democracy and our way of life, but press freedom does not mean that the press should be above the law and in announcing this inquiry the Prime Minister has invited views on the way the press should be regulated in the future.
	I also have to make a decision about News Corporation’s plans to buy the shares it does not already own in BSkyB. I know that colleagues on both sides of the House and the public at home feel very concerned at the prospect of the organisation that allegedly allowed these terrible things to happen being allowed to take control of what would become Britain’s biggest media company.
	I understand that in the last few minutes News Corporation has withdrawn its undertakings in lieu. On 25 January, I said I was minded to refer News Corporation’s proposed merger with BSkyB to the Competition Commission in the absence of any specific undertakings in lieu. As a result of News Corporation’s announcement
	this afternoon, I am now going to refer this to the Competition Commission with immediate effect and will be writing to it this afternoon—
	[
	Interruption.
	]

Mr Speaker: Order. Whatever opinion a Member has about this matter, it is a question of elementary courtesy that the Secretary of State should be heard.

Jeremy Hunt: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today’s announcement will be an outcome that I am sure the whole House will welcome. It will mean that the Competition Commission will be able to give further full and exhaustive consideration of the merger, taking into account all relevant recent developments.
	Protecting our tradition of a strong, free and independent media is the most sacred responsibility I have as Culture Secretary. Irresponsible, illegal and callous behaviour damages that freedom by weakening public support for the self-regulation on which it has thrived. By dealing decisively with the abuses of power we have seen, hopefully on a cross-party basis, the Government intend to strengthen and not diminish press freedom—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State must be heard.

Jeremy Hunt: The Government intend to strengthen and not diminish press freedom, making this country once again proud and not ashamed of the journalism that so shapes our democracy.

Edward Miliband: I accept the Culture Secretary’s apology for the late notice of his statement, but the truth is that it points to the chaos and confusion at the heart of the Government. After what we have heard and the questions that have been left unanswered, we all know that it is the Prime Minister who should be standing at the Dispatch Box today. It is quite wrong that he chose to do a press conference on Friday in Downing street about the issues but is unwilling to come to the House today. Instead, he chose to do a press conference at Canary Wharf, just 20 minutes down the road.
	The Culture Secretary has no direct responsibility for the judicial inquiry that he talked about, and he has no direct responsibility for the police and the relationship with the media, but he has been left to carry the can by a Prime Minister who knows there are too many difficult questions for him to answer. It is an insult to the House and to the British public.
	Let me ask the Culture Secretary a series of questions. First, on the subject the judge-led inquiry, as soon as an inquiry is established, tampering with or the destruction of any documents becomes a criminal offence. We already know that is relevant to the offices of the News of the World. It may also be relevant to any documents in No. 10 Downing street and Conservative headquarters. Will the Culture Secretary—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I said a few moments ago that the Secretary of State must be heard. The same goes for the Leader of the Opposition, and if Members are chuntering away or, worse, shouting, they had better stop it.

Edward Miliband: Will the Culture Secretary now agree that the judge-led inquiry should be established immediately? Any less means there is a risk that evidence will be destroyed.
	Will he also confirm that the inquiry will be set up under the Inquiries Act 2005 so it can compel witnesses to attend? The inquiry must have the right terms of reference, including the unlawful and unethical practices in the newspaper industry and the relationship between the police and certain newspapers. Neither of those issues were in the terms of reference implied by the Secretary of State in his statement. Can he confirm that all these issues will be in the terms of reference?
	Secondly, let me talk about BSkyB. Let us be clear: the trouble that the Government are in is of their own making. Any changes they make are not because they have chosen to do so but because they fear defeat in the House on Wednesday evening. The Culture Secretary chose not to follow the recommendation of Ofcom to refer this bid to the Competition Commission and he has been insisting for months that he can proceed on the basis of assurances from News Corporation. On Friday, the Prime Minister said the same. Now the Culture Secretary has adopted the very position he has spent months resisting—and the confusion continues. The Deputy Prime Minister has joined the call I made yesterday for Rupert Murdoch to drop the bid. On BSkyB, the Government are in complete disarray. Does the Deputy Prime Minister speak for the Government? If so, is the Culture Secretary now asking Rupert Murdoch to drop the bid? Can the Culture Secretary now assure us that on the basis of his new position, no decision will be made on the BSkyB bid until the criminal investigation into phone hacking is complete? Nothing else can give the public the confidence they need.
	Thirdly, will the Culture Secretary state his position to the House on the need for responsibility to be accepted at News International? The terrible hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone happened on Rebekah Brooks’s watch, while she was editor of the News of the World. Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister refused to say she should go, and on Friday all he offered were weasel words. Will the Culture Secretary say what the Prime Minster refused to—that Rebekah Brooks should take responsibility for what happened on her watch and resign from her post?
	Fourthly, given the role of Andy Coulson in relation to phone hacking and other allegations of illegality, will the Culture Secretary clarify the following—[ Interruption. ] Government Members should listen to what I am saying because it is relevant to victims up and down the country. On Friday at his press conference, the Prime Minister said, about the appointment of Andy Coulson:
	“No one gave me any specific information.”
	Yet Downing street has confirmed that The Guardian newspaper had discussions with Steve Hilton, the Prime Minister’s senior aide, before Andy Coulson was brought into government. Those conversations detailed Mr Coulson’s decision to rehire Jonathan Rees—a man who had been jailed for seven years for a criminal conspiracy and who is alleged to have made payments to the police on behalf of the News of the World. This serious and substantial information was passed by Steve Hilton to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Mr Ed Llewellyn. The information could not have been more specific. Now, can the Culture Secretary tell us whether
	Ed Llewellyn, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, told the Prime Minister about this evidence against Mr Coulson, or are we seriously expected to believe that Mr Llewellyn, an experienced former civil servant, failed to pass any of this information on to the Prime Minister? Frankly, that beggars belief as an explanation. This issue goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s integrity and we need answers from the Culture Secretary.
	Can the Culture Secretary now tell us whether it is true that the Prime Minister also received warnings from the Deputy Prime Minister and the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Lord Ashdown, about bringing Andy Coulson into government? Unless the Prime Minister can explain what happened with Mr Coulson and apologise for his terrible error of judgment in appointing him, his reputation and that of the Government will be permanently tarnished.
	The Prime Minister was wrong not to come to the House today. As on every occasion during this crisis, he has failed to show the necessary leadership that the country expects. He saw no need for a judicial inquiry, he saw no need to change course on BSkyB and he has failed to come clean on Andy Coulson. This is a Prime Minister running scared from the decisions he made. This is a Prime Minister who is refusing to show the responsibility the country expects. The victims of the crisis deserve better, this House deserves better and the country deserves better.

Jeremy Hunt: Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition about what the Prime Minister has done—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want everybody who wants to contribute to these exchanges to have the chance to do so, but people who shout and scream cannot then expect to be called, and it is a rank discourtesy. It must stop on both sides of the House.

Jeremy Hunt: We are fighting a war. The Prime Minister arrived back from Afghanistan at around 10 o’clock last Tuesday night. By Wednesday lunchtime he had established two public inquiries. That is doing more in less than one week than the right hon. Gentleman’s party did in eight years.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about Andy Coulson. He should be very careful not to be someone who throws sticks in glass houses. In his comments he criticised me for being willing to accept assurances from News Corp. He was willing to accept assurances from the very same people about Tom Baldwin.
	Let me answer some of the right hon. Gentleman’s specific questions. Tampering with evidence does not need a judge-led inquiry to be set up. It is a criminal offence now. We are moving as fast as we can to set up a judge-led inquiry into all the actions that were illegal or improper. We also want to set up an inquiry, with cross-party support—hopefully—to look into the unethical behaviour by the press, and we want that to start work immediately. Inquiries into illegal actions have to wait until after police investigations are complete. We are willing to talk to the right hon. Gentleman in order to get some kind of cross-party consensus so that that can happen as soon as possible. I said in my statement that we would like that to start as soon as this summer.
	With respect to the BSkyB decision, I have at every stage in this process followed the procedures laid down in the Enterprise Act 2002 that was passed by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. Not only that, but I have done more than those processes require, because at every stage I have asked for independent advice from the expert media regulator, Ofcom, and after careful consideration at every stage I have followed that advice.
	Let me say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that he needs to show some humility in this matter. He attended Rupert Murdoch’s summer party and failed to bring up the matter of phone hacking. He was part of a Cabinet—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear the answer.

Jeremy Hunt: He was part of a Cabinet which, according to the then Culture Secretary, discussed phone hacking and decided not to act, and we now know why. According to the autobiography of Tony Blair’s chief of staff, Jonathan Powell,
	“We first started discussing…the failed relationship between the media and politics in 2002…We discussed the issue back and forth for the next three years, but Tony never felt the moment was right to speak out…Gordon, who was courting the press, had no intention of agreeing to anything that might upset them.”
	Now is not the time for party political posturing. We have all failed—politicians, journalists and media owners—and we must all work together to put the problem right.

Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital in his role that he should act within the law, taking independent advice—legal advice—because if he does not, any decision that he makes can be attacked in court? Does he agree that it is all very well for the Opposition to make their points today, but the spirit in the House last week was that there were faults on all sides and that we ought to do what is in the interests of the country? Does he agree that the Leader of the Opposition has betrayed that today?

Jeremy Hunt: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. If we are to tackle this very serious cancer that we have seen in our society in the past week, we need a responsible attitude from Members on both sides of the House, and if we are worried about newspapers getting above the law, Ministers need to set an example and ensure that they do not get above the law themselves.

Alan Johnson: I am surprised that we have the monkey at the Dispatch Box and not the organ grinder—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. Members are entitled to their own views on taste. There has been no breach of order.

Alan Johnson: The Prime Minister said on Friday that he received no ''specific" information, but it is clear that that information was passed to Ed Llewellyn. If Ed Llewellyn failed to pass that information to the Prime Minister, will he be sacked or given “a second chance”?

Jeremy Hunt: I take being called a monkey very seriously, because in my wife’s country they used to eat them.
	With regard to what the Prime Minister did or did not know, he will answer for himself, but he has said that he takes full responsibility for the decisions he took and that he had no knowledge of any illegal of criminal activity by Andy Coulson when he decided to employ him.

Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State, whose behaviour so far on this matter has been beyond reproach, pass on to the Government and the leader of the Conservative party the request that they join my party in asking Rupert Murdoch to withdraw his bid, and will he confirm that it is entirely appropriate for the regulator, Ofcom, to consider illegality by any of the people employed by any title owned by News Corporation, meaning all its newspapers and not just the News of the  World?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend has asked a question that I cannot answer, because every Member of the House can have a view on whether the take-over should go ahead or be withdrawn except me, as I have a quasi-judicial role and so I am unable to prejudge the decision by making a comment. With regard to illegality and the requirement under the Broadcasting Act 1990 that all people holding broadcasting licences be fit and proper, I wrote to Ofcom this morning to ask whether it stood by its original advice that the deal could go ahead, in view of the matters that came to light last week and had News Corporation not withdrawn its undertakings today. I am pleased to say that, with this referral to the Competition Commission, all those issues will be considered properly and fully.

Margaret Beckett: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that at a time when wrongdoing was being very strongly alleged, and even more strongly denied, the Prime Minister’s decision then to appoint Andy Coulson to No. 10 as director of communications reinforced the credibility of what we now know to be unjustified denials of wrongdoing? Is that not why the Prime Minister should be here today?

Jeremy Hunt: With respect to the right hon. Lady, there are all sorts of things that this Government and the previous Government have done that we might now review in the light of the allegations that have emerged in the past week. That is why it is incredibly important that we have these two public inquiries to get to the bottom of press ethics, which is why we are trying to ensure that we grapple with the problem and sort it out, rather than sit on it for a very long time.

Louise Bagshawe: In 2003 the predecessor of the current Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which I am a member, warned of deplorable practices in the media, including payments by journalists to the police, and called for an inquiry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should have had an inquiry at that time?

Jeremy Hunt: Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I think that everyone will be reflecting on what has happened. In the last Parliament there were two Select Committee inquiries on the matter and two reports by the Information Commissioner stating that things were wrong and needed
	to be sorted out, but nothing happened. Let us hope that as a political class we are up to the challenge of sorting things out this time.

Jack Straw: Extraordinarily, the Secretary of State has come to the House without any briefing whatsoever to give further and better particulars behind the Prime Minister’s statement on Friday that he had—very careful words—no “specific” knowledge that Mr Andy Coulson had appointed a known criminal to work at the News of the World. Given the absence of a briefing today, does the Secretary of State accept that it is his duty to go back to the Department and to Downing Street and insist that a full, detailed chronology of who informed whom—or failed to inform whom—by name and what they said is published by the close of play today?

Jeremy Hunt: I believe that the Prime Minister is a man of honour and integrity, and when he says that he had no knowledge of that particular episode, I believe him.

Duncan Hames: It is regrettable that undertakings that the Secretary of State had previously secured have been withdrawn today, but will he tell the House why, under the Competition Commission referral, it is possible for the “fit and proper person” test to be applied in the decision?

Jeremy Hunt: I will tell my hon. Friend why that is the case. Typically, when there is a referral to the Competition Commission, it could decide to block the deal entirely or it could negotiate undertakings, circumstances and conditions under which it would consider it acceptable for the merger to go ahead. The Competition Commission is considering media plurality, just as I did. It is not considering broader competition issues, but if as part of that consideration it decided to accept any undertakings, it would want to be sure that they were credible, which is why compliance with the “fit and proper person” requirements of the Broadcasting Act 1990 will be extremely important.

Ben Bradshaw: Did the Secretary of State know about the dinner involving the Prime Minister, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks two days after he was handed responsibility for this policy area? Why, shortly after that dinner, did he abandon the previous approach by the Business Secretary and reject Ofcom’s clear recommendation to send the matter to the Competition Commission?

Jeremy Hunt: I did not know about the dinner, and I did not reject Ofcom’s recommendation. If the former Culture Secretary had been listening to my statement, he would know that I actually accepted its recommendation. On 25 January, I wrote to News Corporation saying that I was minded to accept what Ofcom were recommending, namely a referral to the Competition Commission.

Anna Soubry: No party cosied up to the Murdoch press as much as the Labour party, and the Press Complaints Commission has been an inadequate, toothless body for far too long. Does the Secretary of State think that there is some connection in the failure of the previous Government to sort out the PCC, and will this Government take on that task?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sorry to say—and I am sure that she will agree with me—that the Leader of the Opposition got his tone absolutely wrong. The shameful events of last week are something for which both sides of the House need to take their share of responsibility, and working together, both sides of the House can make sure that we sort them out so that they never happen again.

Gerald Kaufman: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on 11 March 2003, Rebekah Brooks told the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport under my chairmanship:
	“We have paid the police for information”,
	thereby admitting a criminal offence? She was then editor of The Sun, having just been editor of the News of the World. How is it possible for someone with that background to become chief executive of an organisation and for that organisation’s bid to be accepted or even not brushed away totally?

Jeremy Hunt: What I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is how is it possible, when that happened under his Government, for them to do absolutely nothing about it for eight years?

Sajid Javid: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will he confirm that any police investigation into this matter will cover the media practice of blagging?

Jeremy Hunt: I confirm to my hon. Friend that the intention is that the judge-led inquiry will cover all illegal and improper activity, and I am particularly keen that it should cover the practice of blagging, which is at the heart of many of the problems that we have been finding out about in the past week.

Tom Watson: As head of Operation Abelard, John Yates would be aware of paperwork showing convicted private investigator Jonathan Rees discussing the use of covert surveillance techniques, including computer hacking, with a close associate of Rebekah Brooks, Mr Alex Marunchak. Rees, while serving time in prison, discussed his contact with reporters from The Sunday Times. Far from this scandal being about wrongdoing at the News of the World, it is a story of institutional criminality at News International. John Yates’ review of the Mulcaire evidence was not an oversight. Like Andy Hayman, he chose not to act. He misled Parliament. He misled readers of The Sunday Telegraph only yesterday. Does the Secretary of State agree that his position is untenable?

Jeremy Hunt: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, who I commend for his tenacious campaign in this area, I do not think that that is a judgment that I, as Culture Secretary, should make. However, all the practices that he describes must be dealt with properly, in terms of both the specific criminal acts and the changes necessary to make sure that they do not happen again. He made one very important reference, in particular, when he pointed out the issue of computer hacking. We have to be very careful to act with sufficient thoroughness to make sure that we do not find that e-mail hacking becomes the next big scandal.

Charlie Elphicke: Between 2003 and 2010, successive reports set out that there were serious problems. Can the inquiry cover the relationship between the media and the Government to look at why action was not taken before now?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes.

Pete Wishart: On behalf of the Scottish National party, we welcome the public inquiries and the referral back to the Competition Commission. Does the Secretary of State agree that there has been a systematic failure of successive Westminster Governments when it has come to the whole field of the regulation of the press? As long ago as 2006, the Information Commissioner found more than 3,000 breaches of data protection, but nothing was done. How can we have any faith that this House will in future get its press regulation fixed?

Jeremy Hunt: It is stretching it a bit to say that this is a Westminster issue and not something that affects the whole of the United Kingdom. We have to sort it out, and we are absolutely determined to do so.

Eleanor Laing: The House fully appreciates why the Secretary of State cannot give his opinion on the BSkyB matter. Is he aware that the vast majority of people out there in the country are not the least bit interested in party political point-scoring, but believe that if Mr Murdoch had any decency at all, he would withdraw his bid for BSkyB?

Jeremy Hunt: As I said in my statement, I completely understand the horror with which many people viewed the thought of a company allegedly responsible for these appalling actions taking over what would become Britain’s biggest media company. I completely understand where the public are on that. We now have a lengthy process that will get to the bottom of the media plurality issues. If any of the appalling events that have come up in the past week are linked to media plurality, I am sure that they will be considered in their entirety.

Chris Bryant: I hope that the whole House will, like me, be scandalised by the facts that are emerging this afternoon about the former Prime Minister’s son’s medical records having been targeted by other newspapers in the News International stable.
	One of the biggest problems that we have is that the police failed to act systematically. Assistant Commissioner Yates repeatedly lied to Parliament. He said that there were very few victims. He said that all the victims had been contacted. He said that all the mobile phone companies had been put on notice in relation to this. All of these things are lies, as he seems to have admitted in yesterday’s edition of The S unday Telegraph, and yet he has not had the decency to apologise to this House or, for that matter, the decency to apologise at all—surely he should. He is in charge of counter-terrorism in this country, for heaven’s sake. Surely he should resign.

Jeremy Hunt: I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s anger on that issue, but obviously parliamentarians cannot tell the police what to do because we have the separation of powers. However, the judge-led independent
	inquiry will look fully at the way in which the police have behaved and it will get to the bottom of this. We must give it our full support.

Don Foster: The House will have noted in the Labour leader’s contribution the complete absence of any reference to the repeated failure by the Labour Government, despite repeated warnings to act in this area. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding what has been announced today, which is frankly little more than another ruse by the Murdoch empire, there is nothing to prevent Ofcom from now investigating whether the Murdoch empire is fit and proper to own the 40% of BSkyB shares that it owns?

Jeremy Hunt: Ofcom is at liberty to investigate the “fit and proper” issue in the Broadcasting Act 1990 at any time. It will have to investigate that issue to see whether it is relevant to the potential acceptance of any undertakings subsequent to a Competition Commission inquiry. Those issues will therefore be looked at thoroughly and carefully.

Keith Vaz: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Home Affairs Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, both of which have held inquiries into these matters, will be consulted about the terms of reference of the public inquiry? I have just received a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions confirming his view on the law of phone hacking. I see that the Attorney-General is beside the Secretary of State. Is it the Government’s view that we should take the narrow interpretation of the law, as championed by the Metropolitan police, or the wider interpretation, as championed by the DPP?

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that that question is slightly above my legal pay grade. It is not for the Government to take a view on that matter, but for the courts. If the courts take a view that is not consistent with what we want to see, we are at liberty, as a Parliament, to change the law to ensure that the courts interpret it in the way that we want.

Stephen Hammond: The previous Administration ignored reports from the Information Commissioner about 300 journalists across the national media being involved in illicit practices to gain information. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the inquiry he is setting up today will look across the national media and consider wider issues than just phone hacking?

Jeremy Hunt: Absolutely; we need to look at the kind of problems we may face in the information age, which might be very different from the tragic problems that were reported last week. We will look at all those issues. We recognise that our press has some of the finest traditions in the world, but has fallen sadly short of them. We want to do everything possible to ensure that we go back to having the finest journalism in the world.

Michael Meacher: Given that the criteria for media plurality are so narrowly drawn that they exclude such critical issues as the capacity to distort competition through cross-promotion, price bundling and preventing rivals from advertising, why cannot the Secretary of State use the delay created by the police investigation and sorting
	through 150,000 responses to the consultation to modernise the criteria for media plurality, either through a one-clause Bill or through an amendment to the communications legislation?

Jeremy Hunt: The issue of media plurality is not as narrowly drawn as the right hon. Gentleman might think. All the issues he talked about can be considered in so far as they affect media plurality. What we cannot consider under the Enterprise Act 2002 are competition issues, which are considered separately. In this case, they were decided by the European Union. We recognise that the law on media plurality needs to be looked at. Some of the processes that have come to light in the past few months have caused Ofcom to question whether the law is right on protecting media plurality, which we all think is very important. We will consider that as part of the communications Bill that we propose to bring before the House in the second half of this Parliament.

Conor Burns: Did my right hon. Friend in recent days take any advice on the potential legal consequences had he, as Secretary of State, followed the advice given in public by the Leader of the Opposition? If he did seek such advice, did it suggest that had he followed the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, he would have sought to place himself above the law?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right that had I, as was suggested by the Opposition on a number of occasions, immediately referred the matter to the Competition Commission without going through due process, I would have exposed the Government to potentially successful judicial review. I think it is incredibly important, when people are concerned about newspapers putting themselves above the law, that the Government do not do so.

David Winnick: Can I bring the Secretary of State back to earlier questions? Is it not an amazing situation when an organisation admittedly involved in criminality can even be considered for further ownership of the media? No one outside this place can really understand that. It is surely a matter for punishment, not for being rewarded.

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that there is indeed a very important responsibility to ensure that everyone who holds a broadcasting licence is fit and proper. However, that is a responsibility not for politicians but for the independent regulator, Ofcom, which I know will discharge its responsibilities very carefully in that respect.

Steven Baker: Do the Government agree with me that the best way to improve media plurality and break the excessive power that has led to such repulsive behaviour is to eliminate all barriers to entry into the media market?

Jeremy Hunt: We want to encourage investment in the UK media sector in any way we can. I have to admit that right now, how to do that has not been at the top of my mind, but I agree that we want to stimulate plurality. The arrival of the internet makes that possible in a much lower-cost way than would otherwise have been the case.

Dennis Skinner: Is it not convenient that this absent Prime Minister has been able to dodge the real questions—what did he know about criminal activities from Murdoch, when did he know it, and is it not time, based upon the British public’s reaction, that we sent this non-tax-paying Murdoch back from whence he came and, for the final humiliation, got the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to drive him to the airport? [Laughter.]

Jeremy Hunt: I am not sure how I can follow that, but suffice it to say that the hon. Gentleman has the chance every Wednesday to ask the Prime Minister any question that he chooses.

Jo Swinson: The Secretary of State understands the huge public concern not just about the plurality issues of the BSkyB takeover but about the criminal and unethical behaviour of Murdoch’s News International. I welcome the Secretary of State’s assurance that the “fit and proper person” test can be taken into account by the Competition Commission, but as he has said, it is Ofcom’s responsibility. In a letter on Friday, it seemed to say that it was reluctant to act while police investigations were ongoing, for fear of prejudicing them. Can the Secretary of State confirm that if the "fit and proper person" test cannot be resolved while the police are still investigating, he will make no decision until the criminal investigations are complete?

Jeremy Hunt: I have to inform my hon. Friend that I am not legally allowed to put a pause in the process until any criminal proceedings have come to a conclusion. However, I will take as much time as I need. I am very well aware of public concern on this issue. The Competition Commission will report in six months’ time, and there will then be a subsequent period of intensive discussions. During that period I am very hopeful that we will properly resolve the "fit and proper person" issue, because I am aware of how important it is to Members of all parties.

Helen Goodman: One of the reasons for operating a positive vetting system in Whitehall is to see whether officials might be susceptible to blackmail. Following the horrific revelations from News International, it appears that Mr Coulson would be a prime candidate for blackmail. Was he positively vetted?

Jeremy Hunt: I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that question.

George Eustice: May I welcome the decision to review the regulation of the media, which is central, long-term, to raising standards and restoring faith in journalism? However, is the Secretary of State aware that for the best part of 10 years, Alastair Campbell invited the Labour party to do just that—to review the regulation of the media—but that it failed to do so throughout its term in office?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why, with the greatest respect, I think the Opposition have got their tone completely wrong this afternoon. We have an opportunity to do something that many Opposition Members in their hearts know should have
	been done a very long time ago. We are determined to do that, and I would encourage them to work with the Government to ensure that this time, we get it right.

George Howarth: In view of the fact that the Secretary of State has a quasi-legal responsibility in some of these matters, why is he making this statement?

Jeremy Hunt: Just because I have a quasi-judicial role does not mean that I am not able to announce to Parliament important developments in the exercise of that role, which is what I have done this afternoon with, I see, Mr Speaker’s approval.

Mr Speaker: I was not expressing approval or disapproval; I was just nodding benignly, as is my way.

Greg Hands: When it comes to the wider inquiry, could we ensure that the press practice of blagging is included? It appears to mean using subterfuge and pretence to gain access to confidential and other personal information, and it has been alleged of other newspapers, including by a journalist who now works for the Leader of the Opposition.

Jeremy Hunt: We must absolutely ensure that we do everything necessary to stamp out blagging. One of the most awful parts of this whole process is that we have discovered just how easy it is. In that respect, I would add that I believe that the role of phone companies is very important as well. They need to ensure that they are co-operating fully to ensure that it stops.

David Hanson: Could the Secretary of State advise me—if he cannot do so today, he could report back in future—as to whether or not the Prime Minister or any member of the Government has discussed these extremely serious allegations with Mr Coulson, or with Rebekah Brooks, since his resignation from the Downing street office in January of this year?

Jeremy Hunt: The Prime Minister has said that he has not spoken to Andy Coulson since he resigned his position—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House has heard what has been said—[ Interruption. ] Order. I call Mr Christopher Pincher.

Christopher Pincher: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a great pity that the very fine and bipartisan speech made last Wednesday by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was not repeated today by the Leader of the Opposition? Does not the contrast between those two speeches demonstrate who is the better and more thoughtful man on this issue?

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to focus not on character assessment and comparisons in relation to it, but on phone hacking and the media.

Jeremy Hunt: Any character assessment should be done by someone independent—as we have been discovering, independence is important.
	May I take this moment to correct what I said earlier to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson)? I believe that what the Prime Minister said was that he has not spoken to Andy Coulson recently.

Denis MacShane: I do not think that the Secretary of State or the Leader of the Opposition were in the House about a decade ago, when there were quite a lot of references to, and discussions about, the occult financing of the Tory party by the then Mr Michael Ashcroft in Belize. That was quite properly investigated by The Times newspaper. Since then, the now Lord Ashcroft has had his second chance—we should leave it at that. In the second inquiry, will the Secretary of State focus a bit on how we can have an ethics of journalism that protects not us, but the little person? Those are the ones who are destroyed by The Sun, The Mail on Sunday, the News of the World and all those foul practices.

Jeremy Hunt: I am not quite sure that I understand the first and second halves of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but let me just say that the second inquiry will absolutely concentrate on the ethics of the press. The lesson from last week is that what changed the public mood was the fact that phone hacking moved from being something that affected celebrities and politicians to something that tragically affected members of the public.

Alun Cairns: Does the Secretary of State regret that such serious and grave matters have been used for party political point scoring? Will he reassure the House that the investigations from hereon in will still contain an invitation to the Leader of the Opposition to contribute constructively to such an important debate that is in all our interests?

Jeremy Hunt: I absolutely give that assurance to the House because we want to solve this problem. The Leader of the Opposition has to make up his mind whether he wants to continue with his party political posturing or tackle this problem in the national interest.

Toby Perkins: Is it not a disgrace that the Secretary of State has come here to make a statement without basic answers to the questions being asked? He does not even know about conversations between Andy Coulson and the Prime Minister that anybody who reads a paper would have known. Why is the Prime Minister not here? What is his engagement that is more important than this House?

Jeremy Hunt: The Prime Minister is not here because today we have had an incredibly important development in a decision for which I am responsible. I therefore thought it important, as did he, that I came to speak to the House.

John Cryer: The Secretary of State will be aware that, in his statement last Friday, the Prime Minister said that he commissioned a company to do a basic background check on Andy Coulson, but
	he omitted to name the company. I am sure that it was a perfectly innocent omission, but will the Secretary of State place those details in the Library of the House this afternoon?

Jeremy Hunt: I will pass on the hon. Gentleman’s request to the Prime Minister.

Chi Onwurah: I have a relatively simple question: did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, pass on details of the allegations of criminal activity to the Prime Minister? If the Secretary of State cannot answer that question, will he write to me to let me know?

Jeremy Hunt: The Prime Minister has said that he had no knowledge of any illegal activity by Andy Coulson before he offered him the job in Downing street.

Michael McCann: You might recall, Mr Speaker, that on 27 April, I led an Adjournment debate in the House on the inadequacies of press self-regulation. Sadly that debate was very thinly attended. I learned from other Members afterwards that a lot of Members did not want to participate in case they were then targeted by the press. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give us that the review of press regulation will be free of intimidation?

Jeremy Hunt: The best reassurance I can give to the hon. Gentleman is the fact that the inquiry into illegal activity—and certainly the kind of pressure he is talking about would be illegal—will be conducted by a judge who will, without fear of favour, look at everything that has happened and make recommendations to ensure that it stops.

Helen Jones: Further to the Secretary of State’s answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), now that he has said that the Prime Minister has not spoken to Andy Coulson “recently”, will he undertake to place in the Library a log of any meetings and phone calls between the Prime Minister and Andy Coulson since his resignation from Downing street?

Jeremy Hunt: I will happily pass on the hon. Lady’s request to the Prime Minister, who will make a decision on what he wishes to place on the public record.

Diana Johnson: Due to the confusion about who knew what and when in Downing street, is it not about time that the Cabinet Secretary was asked to conduct a review and get to the bottom of who knew what and when?

Jeremy Hunt: With respect to the hon. Lady, we have two independent reviews, one of which is looking into all illegal and improper activity, and the other of which is
	looking into press ethics. I think that all the activities about which she is concerned will be covered.

Sheila Gilmore: The Secretary of State indicated at the beginning of his statement that he had been late in preparing the statement because something had happened within the past half hour. He then went on to say that he was here instead of the Prime Minister because an important development had taken place. However, we were given to understand two or three hours ago that it would indeed be the Secretary of State making the statement. Surely these statements do not square.

Jeremy Hunt: Had News Corporation not withdrawn its undertakings half an hour before I spoke, I would have had another important announcement—one that is no longer valid—to make to the House about the operation of those undertakings. That is why the Prime Minister said that I was the appropriate person to make this statement.

Kerry McCarthy: Little has been said today about the practice of journalists giving illegal backhanders to police officers and perhaps even to royal protection officers, which seems to be prevalent from the News of the World down to the smallest local paper. It is disappointing that the Home Secretary is not here for this debate. May we have assurances from the Secretary of State that before Parliament goes into recess we will get a statement from the Home Secretary about what actions she has taken to stamp out this practice and ensure that any police officers involved are held to account?

Jeremy Hunt: I hope that what I have announced today will reassure the hon. Lady, because we are having a judge-led inquiry that will look into all illegal and improper activities, including the kind of activities that she has mentioned. That inquiry will be statutory, and it will have the ability to compel witnesses, who will speak under oath, so we will get to the bottom of the kind of activities that she describes and ensure that we stamp them out.

Paul Blomfield: Does the Secretary of State agree that it was wrong for ordinary staff at the News of the World to have been sacrificed in an effort by News International to protect those at the very top of the organisation who were really responsible for the scandal at that newspaper? Does he therefore agree that Rebekah Brooks should resign from her post forthwith?

Jeremy Hunt: I think everyone should be held to account for their actions, whether they are the people personally responsible for phone hacking or the people who authorised it.

Points of Order

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. One hon. Member has already referred to 11 March 2003. Also on that day, Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and cited the Milly Dowler case as a prime example of good co-operation between the press and the police. In retrospect, that seems one of the most disgusting pieces of cynical manipulation of a Select Committee ever. In addition, there has subsequently been a series of lies by News International and by the Metropolitan police to Select Committees of this House. That means that Members from all parties have been led a merry dance. That is partly because witnesses are not required to give evidence on oath, and we are therefore unable to pursue someone for perjury if they have lied to a Select Committee.
	There is now, however, going to be a judge-led inquiry in which the witnesses will have to give evidence on oath. Mr Speaker, can you ensure that it is perfectly possible for that inquiry to look at the issue of whether lies were told to Parliament, which might otherwise be covered by privilege—[ Interruption. ] I hear what the Clerk is saying, and I disagree with him. I urge you to disagree with him as well, because it is important that the judge-led public inquiry should be able to look at how Parliament could be so grossly misled, how Members could be intimidated and how people could refuse to give evidence. If that were to happen, we might come up with a stronger Parliament that is able to deal better with issues such as these in the future.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but he is somewhat inclined to invest me with powers that I do not possess. Although it is generous of him to make that attempt, I think that in all wisdom, I should resist it. I will happily reflect on the particular points that he makes, but I would emphasise to him and to the House that there is a distinction between what the Chair can do and what the House as a whole can decide to do. The hon. Gentleman will know that a Member who wishes to raise a privilege complaint —he did not use those words, but I think that that concept was there in his point of order—is required to give me written notice. That is provided for on page 273 of “Erskine May”. I understand, as I think the House now will, that the Select Committees involved in this matter—the Home Affairs Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee—are themselves pursuing the matter. As the hon. Gentleman also knows, the Chair does not intervene in matters before Committees of the House. I must also add that it is of course always open to a Committee to report to the House on any matter it wishes, but that is a matter for the Committee and not for the Chair to decide. I will leave it there for today.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: In a moment. Patience will be rewarded. I call Mr Hilary Benn.

Hilary Benn: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you advise the House whether you received any indication earlier today from the Prime
	Minister as to why he was unable or unwilling to come to the House this afternoon to make the statement that we have just heard? His refusal to do so means that the House has had no opportunity to question him about these matters, whereas last Friday he gave the press the chance to do that in a press conference. Is not that a gross discourtesy to the House? Furthermore, given the number of questions asked of the Secretary of State this afternoon that he was unable to answer—I feel sorry for him, because he has been dumped in it—can you confirm that you would make time available later today for the Prime Minister to come to the House to make a statement if he can finally find the time and the will to do so?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for his point of order. The answer to his first question is no. I received no communication of the kind to which he referred. The second point that I would make to him is that it is always open to a Minister, if he or she so wishes, to come to the House at any time to make a statement on an important matter that is of interest both to the Government and to the House.

Gerald Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have had cause on a number of occasions recently to draw your attention to the fact that Ministers have made statements and held press conferences outside this House—they have done so on a considerable number of occasions now—and then come to the House either later or not at all. We have now had the latest and worst example of this. The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport said in his last answer that everyone should be held accountable for their actions. The one person who refuses to be accountable for his actions in this is the Prime Minister. That being so—while I recognise that although you do not have power, you do have a remit—what action will you take, Mr Speaker, to make it plain to this Government that it is totally unacceptable for them constantly to insult this House by making statements outside the House and then perhaps coming here as an afterthought?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. First, I have repeatedly stressed—and I do so again—that important statements of policy, including changes of policy, should be made first to the House. Secondly, the Prime Minister, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, will be here in the House, if not before Wednesday, then on Wednesday to respond to questions. The right hon. Gentleman and other Members may seek to catch my eye on that occasion if they are so minded. Thirdly, he will have noticed that when statements are made, in an attempt always to protect the interests of the House as a whole—and in particular the interests of Back-Bench Members—I am inclined to let them run fully, so that Back Benchers have a full and unvarnished opportunity to question the Minister, whoever that Minister may be, and however senior he or she may be.

Paul Farrelly: Further to the earlier point of order, Mr Speaker. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has followed phone hacking tenaciously. In February last year we issued a report that found it inconceivable that only one rogue reporter at the News of the World knew about
	phone hacking. During that inquiry very senior people at the
	News of the World
	and News International testified that a so-called second investigation, in 2007, found no further evidence of wrongdoing, and News International’s lawyers wrote us a letter confirming that. However, documents passed to the Metropolitan police by News International and held by those self-same lawyers now show that this was a blatant untruth. Several inquiries into this whole affair have already been announced, but it also prompts the question whether Select Committee powers should be made more effective—from giving powers of summons through to imposing consequences when witnesses mislead and lie with impunity. On behalf of the House, may I ask you, Mr Speaker, to give some thought not only to future reform to make Select Committee powers more effective, but to discussing the issue urgently, so that we can learn the lessons of this affair with the Government and urge them to bring forward reforms to put Select Committees in this House on a par with congressional committees in the United States?

Mr Speaker: Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. With reference to the specifics of the matter to which he has referred, if a Committee feels dissatisfied with the information that it has been given, it is open to that Committee to reopen an investigation or to request the reappearance of a previous witness, as a number of Committees have already decided. In so far as he focused in the second part of his remarks on the cause of strengthened Select Committees, with greater powers, I would say to him that if the House wants more powerful Select Committees, with a number of specific new powers that they do not currently possess, the House can will it. That is not specifically for the Chair—the Chair has spoken on these matters on many previous occasions, and I think the Chair’s views are well known on these issues—but for the House to decide.

Stephen Pound: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you advise the House if there is a mechanism for correcting the extremely unfortunate—and, I am sure, unintended—typographical error in paragraph 1, line 5 of the written statement circulated by the Secretary of State, which could cause considerable distress? What mechanism can be used to correct this?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a trusty servant of the House. He is also sometimes a mildly unkind Member in that he refers to a matter without giving me any advance notice. The truth is that I do not have the foggiest idea what he is chuntering about—but I will look into the matter. If he wants to return to it and it is a genuine point of order, I will try to respond to it.

Helen Jones: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today, Southern Cross has announced that it is going to cease trading, which is causing great concern to many elderly people and their relatives and, indeed, to many Members. Have you had any indication from Ministers that they are going to make a statement about this? I include Ministers from both the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government, as I am sure Members would like to hear what additional support is being offered to local authorities. Have Ministers approached you in any way, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker: I have received no indication of any intended ministerial statement on this subject, but I alert the hon. Lady and the House to the fact that tomorrow we have questions to the Secretary of State for Health, including topical questions. That might provide a suitable opportunity to highlight these concerns.

Emily Thornberry: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. About 31,000 vulnerable residents do not know what is going to happen to their homes. Have you heard, Mr Speaker, whether Ministers intend to publish the full list of landlords who are suddenly taking control of 250 homes as of today so that we can have some transparency about the process? At the moment, as I say, 31,000 vulnerable residents are in the dark and 40,000 members of staff have no idea whether their terms and conditions are going to be honoured.

Mr Speaker: I accept that this is an extremely serious matter and, in the mind of the hon. Lady and perhaps others, a matter of some urgency. She will know that, as I have just pointed out to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), Health questions take place tomorrow and the issue can be aired then. I have a suspicion that the hon. Lady, who has quite properly raised this matter a number of times, will return to it before long. The Minister on the Bench and representatives of the Government will have heard what she had to say.

Toby Perkins: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) asked the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) a question about the way in which the pupil premium was spent in Lancaster. The Minister turned up, having clean forgotten to bring an answer to that question. That came hot on the heels of a recent written question that revealed that the Department for Education answers a very small number of questions on time. Can you, Mr Speaker, enable the House to hold the Department for Education to account by inquiring what problems it faces that can justify Ministers turning up unable to answer questions for which they have had a week’s notice?

Mr Speaker: I note the point of order and the hon. Gentleman will recall that when that question was answered—or, rather, not answered, as he describes—I indicated to the Minister that it would help if Ministers read the question before answering it rather than afterwards. To be fair, the Minister took responsibility for that, and I understood her to indicate that she would look into it and seek to avoid a repetition. I hope that that is helpful, but I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman will keep his beady eye on the matter. The House would expect nothing less.

european union bill (programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the European Union Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 7 December 2010 (European Union Bill (Programme)) and 24 January 2011 (European Union Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(James Duddridge.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Clause 1
	 — 
	Interpretation of Part 1

David Lidington: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 2 and 4.

David Lidington: Since the Bill was given its Third Reading just four months ago, it has been considered carefully and assiduously by the other place, as Members in all parts of the House would expect. I pay tribute to the House of Lords for the diligent way in which it examined the Bill. The Government may not always have shared the views of colleagues in the other place, and we will deal with the points of disagreement in more detail during the debate, but it only right for us to note and welcome the careful, meticulous analysis conducted there.
	The House of Lords has agreed to 15 amendments which it now falls to us to consider. They cover a number of issues, and I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will want to spend some time considering each of them, so I shall try to make good progress with each group.

Kelvin Hopkins: Having read the Lords amendments fairly carefully over an hour or so, I have the impression that they are all essentially about weakening a Bill which was not very strong in the first place. Could we not shorten the debate and vote on them fairly quickly?

David Lidington: I welcome what I take to be the hon. Gentleman’s support for a reversal of some of the Lords amendments and a restoration of the Bill to the state that it was in when it left this House. However, I am in his hands and those of other Members in terms of the time that it will take to deal with the amendments. I feel that we should do justice to the consideration that the House of Lords devoted to the Bill by dealing in turn with the amendments for which it voted.

William Cash: If I may quote the hallowed words of, I believe, John Bright, we should perhaps
	“Be just, and fear not”.
	Will the Minister be kind enough to confirm that he will do everything possible to ensure that the amendments relating to clause 18, to which the European Scrutiny Committee gave such careful consideration and on which it produced such a comprehensive report, will be reached so that we can at least discuss those questions emphatically? They are extremely important, and will allow us to discuss the Supreme Court and its potential interpretation of laws that might inhibit the supremacy of this House.

David Lidington: I certainly do not intend to delay our reaching a group of amendments in which I know my hon. Friend is particularly interested. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), I am in the hands of the House in terms of how long it will take us to debate the two groups of amendments that Mr Speaker has placed before the group relating to clause 18.
	The first three amendments were proposed by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howell of Guildford on behalf of the Government. They are essentially technical, and were intended to deal with concern that was expressed in the House of Lords about the interpretation of some of the provisions in part 1. They fall into two categories.
	Lords amendment 1 changes one of the definitions in clause 1 involving the phrase “or otherwise supporting”. The fear was expressed in the House of Lords that the Bill, as originally drafted, could inadvertently prevent Ministers and their officials from taking part constructively in negotiations about new proposals for action. That is not, and has never been, the Government’s intention. Our intention is that the United Kingdom should continue to be an active player in the European Union, engaging with our partners and ensuring that the EU delivers what it ought to be delivering for the benefit of our citizens and those of other European countries.
	Under the Bill, the Government would not be able to vote in favour of, or otherwise support, a treaty or other provision specified in part 1 when the time came for the final decision to be made in the European Council or in the Council of the European Union without the necessary approvals. The words “or otherwise supporting” are included simply because—as many Members who follow European affairs closely will know—it is possible for a proposal that is subject to unanimity to be adopted even it has not been agreed to by each member state in a formal vote. For example, a formal vote does not always take place. In certain circumstances where the Chair believes that he or she has the mood of the room, silence can be taken as assent and, when a decision requires unanimity, abstention is, effectively, counted as a supportive vote, as set out in articles 235(1) and 238(4) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union.

William Cash: Having listened with enthusiasm and interest to my right hon. Friend’s earlier remarks about timing, on the basis that I think it is generally conceded that this particular batch of amendments is entirely uncontroversial and that the whole question of the amendments’ content could be dealt with in about 30 seconds flat, will he be kind enough to address them as swiftly as possible, to ensure that the House can get its views across on all matters?

David Lidington: I am encouraged by my hon. Friend’s remarks to be increasingly confident that we can reach the group of amendments on which he is anxious to speak in good time. I remind him, however, that four hours have been set aside for our deliberations on these three groups of amendments, and I think it is right that we should do justice to the consideration that the House of Lords gave to the Bill by addressing each of the amendments it approved.
	On Lords amendment 1, all I want to say further is that the phrase “or otherwise supporting” is included to remove any doubt—just as the previous Government used that phrase to remove any doubt when drafting the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008—and to ensure that a proposal could not be adopted in such a way without the appropriate authority required under the provisions of the Bill.
	Lords amendments 2 and 4 make it clear beyond doubt that, under the terms of the Bill, a referendum would not be required in the United Kingdom if a treaty change did not apply to the UK but only to Gibraltar, and this would not transfer competence or power from the United Kingdom. I say straight away that it is hard to work out a scenario in which a treaty amendment that constituted a transfer of competence or power would apply only to Gibraltar and not to the UK. It is possible in theory, and this point was raised in the other place, and we have sought to assuage that concern by proposing these two technical amendments.

Henry Smith: Notwithstanding the recent comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on the need for brevity, let me say that while I agree that this is a technical tidying up of the clause as it left this place, I am concerned that a future Foreign and Commonwealth Office—not the current one—that wished to stitch up the good and loyal people of Gibraltar should not have that opportunity through the back door of the European Union.

David Lidington: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the current Government are absolutely committed to Gibraltar remaining British for as long as the people of Gibraltar want that to continue. We have made that clear publicly since the day we took office, and I have repeated it in public both in this country and on a visit to Gibraltar a few months ago.

Ian Davidson: Given that this proposal refers specifically to Gibraltar, has the Minister sought and obtained the views of the Government of Gibraltar, and are they supportive of it?

David Lidington: Yes, we have done so. The original provision before its amendment by the House of Lords was approved by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, whom we consulted before originally publishing the Bill, and we have consulted the Government of Gibraltar about the additional change in this Lords amendment and they are content with it. They do not think it in any way damages their position.
	I hope the House will agree to these Lords amendments.
	Lords amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Treaties amending or replacing TEU or TFEU

David Lidington: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Lords amendments 5 to 13 and 15.

David Lidington: I ask the House not to support the Lords in these amendments. I am afraid that I am going to have to test the patience of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) a little on this group, because these Lords amendments were passed against the Government’s wishes and, in our view, significantly weaken the Bill’s safeguards.
	The amendments would restrict the scope or operation of the referendum lock that was approved by this House. They are contrary to our clear intention to ensure that any future proposal to amend the European Union treaties to transfer further competence or power from this country to the European Union should be subject to the consent of the British people. The purpose of the Bill is to reconnect with the people whom we serve. It aims to re-engage them with key decisions on the direction of the European Union, on which they have, in the past, been denied their say. The amendments would not deliver on those aims but, on the contrary, make it much more difficult to achieve them.

William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend join me in deploring what recent events have demonstrated? Does he, thus, agree that it would have been extremely desirable to ensure that a referendum should apply to any treaty, either current or future, which attempted to change the fundamental relationship of the United Kingdom to the European Union, including in respect of the creation of a two-tier Europe—between the eurozone and the EU—in economic governance? Does he agree that that is a matter on which a referendum is every bit as important? This is not merely a question of a transfer of competence and powers but one that goes to the very heart of the constitutional relationship between the UK and the EU.

David Lidington: If, as I hope, this Bill obtains Royal Assent and goes on to the statute book, this Government and future Governments will, from the moment its powers are commenced, be bound by the provisions of this legislation with regard to the way in which they handle any future proposal to amend the European Union treaties, negotiate and agree a completely new treaty or invoke one of the passerelle clauses in the treaty of Lisbon. As my hon. Friend knows, in certain cases a Government would have to hold a referendum before a particular treaty could be ratified by this country. For any treaty change, even one that according to the provisions of this Bill would not automatically require a referendum, an Act of Parliament—primary legislation—would be needed, and it would of course be open to Parliament at that time to decide to go further even than the provisions that we are putting forward in this legislation.

William Cash: May I say that I am delighted by that delightfully disingenuous response? As my right hon. Friend knows perfectly well, I am referring to the treaty that has already been made, and I immediately realised what he was up to when he talked about “any future” treaty. I accept that an Act of Parliament may be needed, but does he not, by the same token as the principles that he has set out in great detail, also agree that we should have a referendum on the creation of such a two-tier Europe, which creates constitutional change in the relationship between the EU and ourselves?

David Lidington: The principle on which the Government have consistently sought to act in preparing and introducing this legislation has been that a change to the treaties that transferred new competencies or powers from the United Kingdom to the institutions of the European Union would require the agreement of the British people in a referendum. That is the principle, so for us the test for the sort of hypothetical treaty change that my hon. Friend is describing would be whether it transferred competencies or powers from this country to the EU. I do not want to stray too far from the subject of the Lords amendments we are discussing, but the hypothesis that he describes could just as well be a question of a quite separate intergovernmental treaty between members of the eurozone, for example, as an amendment to the treaty of Lisbon, which would require the assent of the United Kingdom.

William Cash: Let me have one last shot. Does the Minister concede that there is a world of difference between the members of the coalition Government having entered into an agreement between themselves for purposes that suit them and the constitutional convention that a referendum is required when there is a fundamental constitutional change in the relationship between us and the European Union? It is as simple as that.

David Lidington: We sought in this Bill to define a constitutional change of the sort that my hon. Friend describes in terms of a transfer of competencies or powers from the United Kingdom to the European Union. That seems to us to be a significant constitutional change and the definition is one that we have incorporated into the Bill. Now, if he will forgive me, never mind how delightful I find his interventions, I think I ought to make some progress in addressing the Lords amendments directly.
	Let me deal first with Lords amendments 3 and 5, which one might term the threshold amendments. They would provide for a turnout threshold of 40% for any referendum under the Bill. If that threshold were not met, regardless of the result the final decision over whether to ratify a treaty change would pass from the people back to Parliament. That runs contrary to the spirit and intention of the Bill and would leave the British people in real doubt about the effect of their vote.
	I know that the intention of colleagues in the House of Lords was to safeguard the sovereignty of Parliament, but I do not agree with them that the Bill would challenge the status of Parliament. In fact, Parliament will have a much stronger role than ever before.

Henry Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for being so courteous in giving way. Does he agree that, ironically, elections to the European Parliament often have a turnout of 40% or less, as do many local authority elections? Would it not be absurd to consider those as merely advisory?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is right. We get into very dangerous territory as elected representatives when we start to say that only votes or elections in which the turnout was above a given percentage are valid. What is at issue is our intention to provide for the British electorate to have the final say on whether or not the
	Government of the day can agree to transfer competencies or powers from the United Kingdom to the European Union. The outcome of a referendum should, in our view, be determined by the will of those who vote and not by how many turn up to vote.
	As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said earlier this year when we debated a turnout threshold for the referendum on the alternative vote:
	“If we agree to anything that passes for any sort of threshold, people in this country will have an incentive to say, ‘If you don’t know, don’t vote’”.—[Official Report, 15 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 907.]
	A turnout threshold seems to me to be a recipe for apathy. It would undermine one of the fundamental aims of the Bill, which is to reconnect the British people and better inform them of the decisions taken in their name at European Union level.

Charles Kennedy: The argument that the Minister is very fairly advancing is reinforced by what the Electoral Commission said in advance of today’s proceedings. Its task and statutory duty in issuing a certificate following an election has to be based on a proper definition of the size of the electorate and what constitutes turnout. Does the Minister agree that the amendments add no clarity whatever to that?

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the views of the Electoral Commission, which I believe it expressed publicly in its response to the amendments passed in the other place. There could be some perverse, although unintended, I am sure, effects if the threshold amendments were upheld. In some circumstances, there would be an incentive for one side in the referendum campaign to urge abstention rather than support in an effort to keep turnout below the magic threshold of 40%. It could also mean some very peculiar outcomes. Obviously we are talking hypothetically, but if we stuck with the 40% threshold, a poll would be deemed invalid if there was a turnout of 39% in which 5% voted one way and 34% voted the other, whereas a poll with a turnout of 41%, with 21% voting one way and 20% voting the other—the 1% margin—

Denis MacShane: That is not 100%.

David Lidington: I assumed that I did not need to translate the figures for the right hon. Gentleman and I am sure that he understands my argument perfectly well. There could be a very small difference between the two sides in a referendum result, but it would be valid if the turnout was just above the 40% threshold, whereas a much bigger and more decisive outcome just below the 40% would be deemed to be of no account.

Kelvin Hopkins: In very extreme circumstances, there could be a result of 39% to zero with the zeros winning.

David Lidington: I think the hon. Gentleman is being hypothetical and I am sure that some voters would be cussed enough to insist on going to the polls whatever the odds against them but his point is a reasonable one.

Denis MacShane: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the referendums on Scottish and Welsh devolution in the late 1970s, which required a threshold which was not reached? That was a grotesque humiliation for the Labour Government and was an exultant moment of glory for the Conservatives as Mrs Thatcher swept forward to victory. You really should not bury your successful past so quickly.

Nigel Evans: Order. I am not trying to bury my unsuccessful past.

David Lidington: In 1979, I was still a university student and had other things on my mind than the devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales. If one takes the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the imposition of the threshold then and looks back at the history of the decade after, which resulted in no move towards satisfying what were genuine aspirations for a greater degree of devolved government in Scotland and Wales, it made the public disconnection from Westminster of the people in those two countries greater over the subsequent years. But this is a matter that historians can argue over.

Ian Davidson: Can I clarify what the Minister is saying? Is he saying that the 40% rule would apply not only to referendums in this context but to any future referendum and that the Government would be committed to opposing any 40% threshold for any future independence referendum in Scotland?

David Lidington: I am not going to speculate on a hypothetical Scottish referendum. We have said clearly not just on this Bill but on the Bill that authorised the referendum on the alternative vote system that we felt the decision should be taken by those people who voted, and the outcome should not depend on any artificial threshold that we chose to impose.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend may recall that it was my amendment that led to the question of the threshold in the AV Bill. Does he accept that something profoundly different went on in the 1970s regarding Scottish devolution, because it was a different formula? On this particular issue, however, there is no doubt that the same kind of spontaneous combustion would occur in relation to any referendum on the European issue, fortunately, and the same kinds of figures would prevail as were registered in parts of Staffordshire—80% against the Government’s proposals to enter into a treaty that was unacceptable to the United Kingdom. There is nothing that anyone can do about it. Tests, thresholds and all the rest of it would be swept away.

David Lidington: I am confident that if and when a British Government made a proposal to support a treaty change to give extra powers to the European Union and put that to the people, the turnout would be significantly above 40%. I have confidence in the voters.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being generous with his time. Does he agree that thresholds are just bliss for the lazy politician? If politicians are not sure that they are going to win and want those on the other side to prove their point, they can sit at home and do nothing. If we extended the threshold to local elections or European
	elections, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) suggested, I would not have been elected on the 23% turnout that was achieved in the east midlands in 1999. More votes were cast that very weekend to evict Bubble from the second “Big Brother” house.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend puts his point well. There have been parliamentary by-elections where the total turnout was less than 40%, and I do not think anybody argued at that moment that the election of that Member was in any way invalid.

Mark Reckless: My right hon. Friend presumed earlier that the Lords had inserted the amendments to protect parliamentary sovereignty. Is it not possible that some noble Lords may have voted to insert the amendments because, in the circumstances outlined by the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), if 39% of people vote against something to do with the EU and 0% in favour, they would prefer it if the 0% won? In this context, is my right hon. Friend aware that some noble Lords are in receipt of EU pensions? Would it not have been better if that financial interest had been declared?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend has put matters on the record. I am content to take the arguments and reasons given by Members of the House of Lords as justification for the amendments in which they believed.

Ian Swales: Does the Minister agree that if we accept the amendment, we are setting up a perverse incentive for the Government of the day to seek a low turnout if they wish to get a measure through? That might affect the way they publicise a referendum or engage with the process.

David Lidington: That puts it fairly. The perverse incentive to seek an apathetic reaction from the electorate is one that I would want to avoid.

Ian Davidson: rose —

David Lidington: I will give way one last time, because I want to deal with the other Lords amendments in the group.

Ian Davidson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way in the circumstances. Surely the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is wrong and we cannot have a situation where Members of the House of Lords who are in receipt of money from Brussels vote and do not declare it. Surely that would be counter to everything in our parliamentary democracy and surely they give an indication that they are in receipt of gold from Brussels.

David Lidington: One thing that I have learned in my 19 years in this place is that each House is very jealous of its own procedures and privileges, including what the rules should be on the declaration of financial interest, so I think we should leave that to the House of Lords authorities to decide.
	I am surprised that the threshold amendment was supported in the House of Lords by the official Opposition Front-Bench team. I hope that when the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) catches the Deputy Speaker’s eye, he will provide some explanation of that course of action and indicate whether he plans to lead his party through the Lobby in defence of a 40% threshold, although he has probably given up hope of leading the hon. Member for Luton North.
	That support is particularly astonishing because the hon. Member for Caerphilly is seriously at odds with his, and my, immediate and distinguished predecessor. It was the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who was Labour’s spokesman on Europe, who said repeatedly in debates on 2 November last year that he disagreed fundamentally with the very idea of thresholds, saying:
	“I do not agree . . . about thresholds in referendums because, broadly, they are not a good idea.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 846.]
	He repeated that a few columns later. As a Conservative politician, I feel slightly nervous trespassing on the frontier between Caerphilly and the Rhondda, but the hon. Member for Caerphilly owes the House an explanation for this departure in Labour party policy that he has presumably devised and implemented.
	Amendments 6 to 13 are very significant indeed in their impact. They would remove from the referendum lock several passerelle decisions that would transfer power and competence from Britain to the European Union. The other place accepted that decisions to adopt the euro, give up UK border controls, or create a single, integrated military force should require a referendum. That was a welcome step, but it is not enough. The coalition agreement set out clearly that
	“no further powers should be transferred to Brussels without a referendum.”
	All the decisions included in clause 6 as it left the House of Commons would constitute such a transfer.
	Some Members of the Lords felt the original clause 6 did not provide Ministers with what they termed sufficient “pragmatic flexibility”. I would say in response that it is a direct consequence of the abuse of so-called “pragmatic flexibility” in the past that there is such lack of trust in the European Union today, and in Governments as a species, for decisions taken on European Union matters. It is that lack of trust which the Bill seeks to address. Speaking as someone who disagrees with some of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, I want to see the United Kingdom playing a vigorous, active, constructive role on behalf of our people within the European Union. Our ability to do that and to enjoy the confidence of the British people in so doing will be enhanced if we can point to the safeguards that are provided for in the Bill included in clause 6.

William Cash: On that important point, is my right hon. Friend aware of the remarks of the Prime Minister as reported in The Spectator only a few days ago on the question of the renegotiation of the existing treaties, which I called on the Prime Minister to do when he came back from the last European Council summit? Does the Minister for Europe know that I tabled a written question to the Prime Minister asking him what objectives he has set to maximise what he wants from the UK’s engagement with Europe, and whether such
	objectives will include any opportunity to renegotiate the UK’s relationship with the EU? As the Minister must know, the answer that I received today says that the Prime Minister is not going to answer that question, I am afraid, and that he has transferred it to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Does the Minister have an answer for me, therefore, to the question that seems to have been transferred to him?

David Lidington: Providing the formal response to my hon. Friend’s question is clearly a treat that is yet in store for me. I will obviously give him a proper and considered response when the question reaches me, but everything I have observed about how my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has acted in respect of the European Union since the general election has shown his utter determination to maximise the interests of the United Kingdom and the British people in every negotiation at European level in which he has taken part. Everything that he, the Deputy Prime Minister and other members of the Government do, from conversations with colleagues to meetings of the Council of Ministers, is about trying to get the best possible advantage for the United Kingdom from our membership of the EU.

Mark Reckless: In that case, although Ministers had such great success in preventing the use of the EU-wide financial stability mechanism in the case of the Greek bail-out, will the Minister explain why it was simply nodded through with respect to Portugal?

David Lidington: I think that I would test the House’s patience if I were to go into that in detail, particularly as there was a debate on bail-outs a few weeks ago, in which I think my hon. Friend participated, and to which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury responded at some length. I am sure that there will be other opportunities to question Treasury Ministers about that.

Nigel Evans: Order. For the convenience of the House, I remind Members that just because the debate has the word “Europe” in the title, that does not mean that we can have a wide-ranging debate on European issues. Some latitude has been given, as Mr Cash knows, but could we now please look at the specific amendments?

David Lidington: The amendments to clause 6 would introduce huge inconsistency in the referendum lock. They would make the method used to transfer competence or power the determining factor in deciding whether or not a referendum should be held, rather than the fact of the transfer of competence or power itself. There are four ways of amending the treaties to allow transfers of power and competence from the United Kingdom to the European Union. First, there is the ordinary treaty revision procedure. Secondly, there is the first part of the simplified revision procedure, which was the method used recently to agree the recent treaty change on the eurozone stability mechanism. Thirdly, the British veto could be given up using the second part of the simplified revision procedure set out in article 48(7) of the treaty on European Union. The fourth and final way is through the use of a decision or passerelle without formal treaty change.
	The Lords amendments seek to remove the last two methods from the referendum lock. I do not see the logic in this. For example, the amendments would mean that were a future UK Government to decide to give up their veto over foreign and security policy under the ordinary treaty revision procedure, there would first have to be a referendum, but if they decided to give up that veto under the passerelle decision in article 31(3), which would have exactly the same effect as a change under the ordinary revision procedure, there would be no requirement for a referendum. I do not think that the British public would understand being able to vote on a treaty change that gave up the veto but not having a say over a passerelle that did exactly the same thing, and there are other such examples. As my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howell argued, this would be tantamount to locking the front and back doors of a house but leaving the kitchen window open. It is not the way to restore the trust of the British people.
	The amendments would also draw an artificial distinction between a possible future agreement on a common European defence that would involve the creation of a single, integrated military force and other similar decisions that would not. The amendment suggests that the only controversial element would be a decision to develop a “single, integrated military force”, but there would inevitably be confusion over the extent to which such a force would be established. For example, would the establishment of an integrated command structure, an integrated unit or integrated budgets count? That lack of clarity could allow each step to be presented as “not quite” leading to a single integrated military force, and therefore “not quite” justifying a referendum. It is important that we hold to the principle that were a British Government to decide to opt in to a common European defence, that should ultimately be subject to a decision by the British people. A common defence could undermine the pre-eminence or capability of NATO, notwithstanding any assurances provided in the EU treaties. Maintaining that pre-eminence has been a long-standing concern of this and previous British Governments.

Bernard Jenkin: My right hon. Friend is making an able demolition of these unacceptable amendments, but will he describe what sorts of decisions on common defence he thinks would currently trigger a referendum, because it is difficult to see how such decisions would constitute a transfer of power under the rather narrow definition set out in the Bill?

David Lidington: As the House debated in Committee and on Report, in the Bill it is the creation of a common European defence entity that goes beyond what is defined as a common security and defence policy, which as my hon. Friend knows is very limited in scope within the treaties as they stand. If there was to be a common European defence, that would clearly have to be defined in treaty terms, but sometimes, as he would be the first to note, language that appears quite generalised in scope, once written into a treaty, provides the basis on which numerous detailed measures can then be brought forward because there has been an overall extension of competence to the EU institutions. It could—I am not saying that it always would—spell the end of an independent UK defence policy, which was one of the previous Government’s red lines during their negotiations on the Lisbon treaty.
	The amendments would also remove any decision to participate in a European public prosecutor from the referendum requirement. Hon. Members will recall the sensitivity and divergence in views across Europe over the idea of a European public prosecutor who would be able to launch prosecutions in the United Kingdom and other member states in areas affecting the EU’s financial interests. When we considered this issue earlier this year it was accepted that people should be asked for their approval before any Government could agree to participate and allow cases to be prosecuted independently in the UK’s legal system.
	We have always guarded jealously—rightly, I think—the principle that decisions on whether to prosecute any individual or corporate entity should be taken by the designated independent prosecutors. To give those powers to some new European body that could come in and state whether a prosecution would or would not take place, irrespective of what the Crown Prosecution Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs said about a particular case, would be a very serious shift of power and competence away from this country to Brussels. It would be right for the British people to be asked to assent to that before a Government were allowed to ratify such a decision.
	Before I move on from the Lords amendments to clause 6, I should like to express my amazement that, when the House of Lords voted for an amendment to remove from the referendum lock a decision to end the requirement for unanimity in agreement to the EU’s multi-annual financial frameworks, the official Opposition voted in favour of that proposal. I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly will explain on the record where the Opposition now stand on the matter. Everyone in the House, whatever their views on the EU, knows that in the next couple of years a key issue facing every Government in the EU and all the Brussels institutions is the negotiation on the new MFF which will effectively set budgetary decisions and ceilings for the next five or seven years in the EU’s life and development. It is vital that that remains subject to unanimity and that the British Government, whoever is in office, continue to have a right of veto.

Wayne David: indicated  assent .

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is nodding, so he must explain why members of his party—not just Labour Back Benchers but official spokesmen in the House of Lords—trooped through the Lobby to say that they wanted to scrap the British veto and allow the fate, for example, of the UK’s rebate to be subject not to consensus but to qualified majority voting. That would be the impact of the measure. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he would remove from the referendum lock a decision to switch from unanimity to QMV on that matter.

William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps it has something to do with the report on the question of economic governance, in which it appeared as if the underlying theme expressed by certain Opposition Members in the House of Lords was edging us towards the prospect of fiscal union? There really is a substantial
	difference in policy, principle and philosophy, if I can use that expression, in their attitude to the EU and that of the House of Commons.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Opposition need to own up to where they are coming from. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly wants to intervene and say that his Front-Bench colleagues in the House of Lords had gone rogue and he was unable to control them, that he was sorry and he did not really mean it, a plea for forgiveness might be entertained. But if he really supports the proposal to remove decisions on the MFF from the referendum lock, he should say so clearly to the House, because the Labour party did not say that when the Bill was debated in the House of Commons.

Wayne David: I will make a deal with the Minister. I am more than happy to explain the Labour party’s decision when I speak to the Lords amendments, but will he explain to the House the comments of Members of the other place such as Lord Brittan, or the actions of Lord Heseltine, both of whom expressed complete disagreement with fundamental aspects of the Bill?

David Lidington: I have huge respect for Lord Brittan, Lord Heseltine and those senior Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords who have devoted their political lives to support for European integration—they have a consistent and honourable point of view on this. I do not agree with them. There is a key difference—and the hon. Gentleman may wish to challenge me—between the way in which Lords Brittan and Heseltine spoke and voted and the way in which his colleagues did so. My noble Friends gave distinguished service in government, but many years ago, and they are no longer ministerial spokesmen. The hon. Gentleman must explain why the Labour party’s official spokesmen in the House of Lords spoke and voted in the Lobby for an amendment that he appears very unwilling to support.

Wayne David: I find it amusing and surprising that the Minister is dismissive of senior Members of the House of Lords such as Lord Brittan, who not only had reservations and disagreed with parts of the Bill, but said that there was nothing in the Bill at all with which he could agree.

William Cash: He has got a pension too.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. It has been interesting to hear hon. Members discuss their opinions of the careers of distinguished Members of the House of Lords, but I should like the Minister to return to the business before the House, which is Lords amendment 3, and his views on that, rather than on anyone in the House of Lords.

David Lidington: I will try to avoid that temptation, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Chris Heaton-Harris: To help out the Opposition, the Minister may have noticed that they had a completely different policy on the MFF on days that began with a
	“T” from on those that began with any other letter. That happens to be true when it comes to the Lords.

Dawn Primarolo: I do not want the Minister to help out the Opposition, who can take care of themselves. I want him to help out the Government by speaking to the amendment. Perhaps he would return to it.

David Lidington: I shall turn to Lords amendment 15, which would insert a sunset clause into the Bill, so that part 1 and schedule 1 would expire when Parliament is dissolved, only to be revived at the discretion of the Secretary of State and with the approval of Parliament for the duration of the new Parliament. That exercise would have to be repeated every five years. I have looked carefully at the arguments for such a measure. As the Government made clear in the other place, sunset clauses can be useful in legislation proposing new or extraordinary powers for the Executive, or in legislation that would serve a specific or time-limited purpose, but this Bill does neither.
	Some colleagues in the House of Lords said that the Bill was a constitutional innovation and should therefore be subject to a sunset clause, but much of what we do in Parliament is innovative. We believe that the Bill is an innovation that will be welcomed by the British people, and it should become an enduring part of our constitutional framework.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree entirely, and I think that the British people would like the Bill to be rather stronger.

David Lidington: I think that the British people would be alarmed at the thought that they were being offered new rights and responsibilities for a term of only five years, and would then have to wait and see whether they would be graciously renewed by a new Parliament.
	In a survey conducted two years ago, more than four out of every five British people wanted a referendum on any future treaty change. Everything that we do in the House is reversible—no single Parliament can bind its successor—so there is no reason to single the Bill out for a sunset clause, which would mean that it merely loaned power to the people of this country on the future direction of the EU for a limited time. After that, the decision on whether or not to lend them the power for another five years would be in the hands of the Government of the day. The British people would rightly look on such a proposition with disdain.

Henry Smith: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. If the amendment were allowed to stand, would it not render the proposed legislation completely empty? As he eloquently said, it goes against the constitutional principle that no Parliament can bind its successor.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is quite right. In a previous Parliament, when we voted for constitutional legislation as far-reaching as the devolution of power to the Scottish Parliament and the Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland, we did not vote for the inclusion of sunset clauses. Parliament took the view that if that legislation, in due course, proved not to be workable, or if there were a profound change in the public mood or a new Government were elected with a mandate from the
	people to effect changes and reverse that devolution, that was a matter for the future Parliament at that time. The idea that we should impose a sunset clause in this case simply because it is something new seems to be completely inconsistent with the way in which Parliament and successive Governments have approached previous constitutional reforms.

William Cash: I am interested in the line that my right hon. Friend is taking. Without pre-empting any other discussion, does he agree that this is also about the whole question of our membership of the European Union being only on loan from this House because under the Factortame decision Lord Bridge made it clear that it was a voluntary act and no more? Does he therefore think that inserting a reference to the European Communities Act 1972, as proposed in the amendment tabled by the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, would be making a profound mistake in thinking that this all hinges on the Act when in fact it depends on Parliament itself?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is inviting me to comment on the subject matter of the third group of amendments. I hope that he will forgive me if I delay commenting in that fashion until we reach those amendments.
	This Bill places Parliament at the heart of every decision to be considered. Each decision will need parliamentary approval, whether by Act or by resolution. The sunset clause would take that power away from Parliament, and until such time as part 1 was revived, none of the controls in part 1—not just the referendum lock but none of them—would apply. Some colleagues in the other place claim that the Government are binding future Governments and not themselves. However, we have already said that we will use the Bill to ratify the current treaty change on the euro zone stability mechanism, and we will also use it to consider the treaty change required for Croatia’s accession. Once the legislation is enacted, this Government, too, will be bound by it.
	There is another reason why a sunset clause is unnecessary. The previous Government set up a system of post-legislative scrutiny under which the Government of the day are required to publish a memorandum to Parliament on the operation of each Act of Parliament up to five years after the commencement of that Act. This is examined by relevant parliamentary Committees, which can decide whether to conduct a detailed examination of that legislation. I am happy to put on record that we think that this is a good idea and that a future Government must publish a full report on how this Bill has been used within five years of its becoming law. That will result in the clarity and the reflection that colleagues in the other place seek, but without arbitrarily depriving the British people of their say.
	The case for this Bill is simple: it is to give the British people the chance to have their rightful say over future changes to the EU treaties, whether through formal revision or use of the passerelles that transfer competence or power from this country to the EU. The Bill does not substitute the British people for Parliament, for Parliament will continue to have a central and strengthened role in approving such key decisions, but it provides a vital opportunity to address the disconnection that has developed over the years between the British people and the decisions
	taken in their name by Parliament and Government. This group of Lords amendments would not help us to achieve these goals—indeed, they would seriously jeopardise our chances of doing so—and that is why I hope that this House will disagree with them.

Wayne David: I would like to comment briefly on Lords amendments 3 and 5 regarding the 40% threshold and on Lords amendments 6 to 13 regarding the number of referendums. I will then focus on Lords amendment 15 regarding the so-called sunset-sunrise clause.
	Some people in both Houses say that a reasonable turnout in referendums is necessary to ensure a demonstrable degree of legitimacy. That argument was advanced during the alternative vote referendum debate, but it has weaknesses. We have already heard that there is a certain perverse incentive to encourage a lower turnout than might usually be the case, and that is a fair point. It is important to remember that there has been a threshold of 40% on only one occasion—the devolution referendums for Wales and Scotland in 1979. Wales rejected the then Government’s devolution proposals by a majority of four to one, while in Scotland there was a turnout of less than 40% but a narrow majority in favour of the proposals. The result in Scotland brought this question to the fore: when is a win not a win? That is a real dilemma, and it is one of the reasons that many Labour Members have reservations about the use of the 40% threshold.
	Reference was made to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I should point out that Rhondda is in south Wales and Ronda, as it was pronounced by the Minister for Europe, is in Spain. My hon. Friend tells me that, although he speaks Spanish, he represents to the best of his ability the constituency in south Wales.
	Amendments 6 to 13 would reduce the number of theoretically possible topics for referendums from more than 50 to three: the single currency, the creation of a single EU integrated military force, and border controls and the Schengen protocols. As Labour Members argued consistently on Second Reading and in Committee, there is an overwhelming argument for referendums to be held if ever a British Government wanted this country to join the single currency, which is extremely unlikely, and when there is a proposal for a major constitutional change. In Committee, we proposed an amendment for a Joint Committee of both Houses to examine whether a proposed treaty change was a significant constitutional change. Unfortunately, that proposal was not successful in this House, and nor did it gain sufficient support in the other place. However, that remains our position. Of course, Members in the other place are entitled to their views, but we have reservations about the proposal that referendums should be confined to these three subject areas, and it is important to put on the record that my comments set out the Labour party’s position.
	That brings me to the sunset-sunrise clause. In the other place, Lord Kerr, the distinguished former head of the diplomatic service, put forward three arguments for such a clause, one of which related to foreign policy. He argued with conviction that were the provision enacted, other European Governments could freeze Britain out of the debate through enhanced co-operation
	or by acting outside the treaties altogether. That might happen, he said, when a British negotiator in Brussels is unable to agree to something
	“because his Government back home will tell him, ‘Don’t be silly. That would trigger a referendum.’”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. 810.]
	He argued that a regular assessment and decision at the start of a new Parliament on whether such a system was working would be a reasonable measure to adopt. That is worthy of consideration.

Charlie Elphicke: A Government would say that only if they did not think that they could win such a referendum, so how can it be right for his lordship to put the case that the British people, if they were minded to vote against such a thing, should have their role entirely negated? That seems to be the essence of the argument, and surely that is wrong.

Wayne David: That is not entirely fair. When Lord Kerr presented his argument, he suggested that referendums could be triggered on what are universally considered as fairly technical, minor matters. It is a hypothetical situation. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that in the minutiae of negotiations, we negotiate effectively for the United Kingdom only when we do not have it in the back of our minds that there might be hurdles to be overcome at a later stage.
	The other two arguments used in the other place were essentially constitutional. It was argued that the referendums envisaged in the Bill are essentially post-legislative. In other words, once the Government have negotiated a treaty change and Parliament has agreed to it, a referendum will be held. As the referendum is post-legislative, it is a lock. The electorate will have to decide whether to overrule the Government and Parliament of the day. Holding referendums post-legislatively in that way questions Parliament’s traditional role. Such a change should therefore be subject to constant review and reaffirmation or otherwise. That constitutional argument is worthy of consideration.
	By far the most important and powerful argument concerns the principle that a Parliament cannot bind its successor. That is a vital principle of our parliamentary democracy. In the evidence taken by the European Scrutiny Committee, which is ably chaired by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), a number of expert witnesses explained the importance of that principle. Michael Dougan, the dean of the Liverpool law school and a professor of European law at the university of Liverpool, concluded his evidence by saying:
	“If there is a real concern about the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty that needs to be addressed during the passage of this Bill, it surely consists in an attempt by the Government to persuade the current Parliament to bind its successors in a manner which runs counter to accepted understandings of our constitutional order.”
	That is a pretty powerful statement.

Kelvin Hopkins: Even though legislation can in a sense bind our successors, our successors can introduce legislation to annul previous legislation. There is a difference between the automatic disappearance of legislation at an election and an Opposition party coming
	into government with the commitment to reverse legislation. That is still possible, so our successors will not be bound absolutely.

Wayne David: That is an important qualification, which I will come on to address specifically. It is important at this stage to make the general case that this is a central part of our unwritten constitution.

William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the question of fettering a future Parliament is secondary these days, unfortunately, to the fact that the Supreme Court could, as the European Scrutiny Committee examined in its evidence and report on this Bill, assert that it has ultimate authority in certain circumstances? That is the mischief that we must ensure does not happen under any circumstances. We will come on to debate clause 18 and the Government’s proposals, which open that door in an alarming fashion.

Wayne David: Like the Minister, I do not want to stray into that debate. One thing that has been clear from this whole debate, including on Second and Third Reading, is the real threat to this institution comes from judicial activism. That threat does not come so much from the European Union as from our own judiciary. We must be mindful of that.
	Another expert witness who gave evidence to the hon. Gentleman’s Committee was Vernon Bogdanor, a research professor at King’s college London and a former tutor of the Prime Minister. He said that
	“the purpose of the bill must be to prevent a future government from supporting such an amendment or transfer without a referendum. The bill seeks, in other words, to bind a future government. That seems to me inconsistent with the declaratory proposition that Parliament is sovereign.”
	That is an extremely powerful statement. We must consider the full impact of this legislation.

Charlie Elphicke: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for Parliaments not binding their successors. The logic of his argument is surely that at the start of each Parliament, this country’s membership of the European Union and the legislation on the European Union should be reconfirmed.

Wayne David: No, I do not think that that is the case. One thing that has come across clearly in this legislation and the debates in this House is the sovereignty of Parliament. We are talking about the sovereignty of Parliament in a dualist system, but Parliament nevertheless has the right to determine what legislation has primacy over the people of this country. The ultimate decision rests with this country.

Ian Swales: The sovereignty of Parliament is obviously absolutely key. If we passed the sunset clause, sovereignty would in effect pass to the next Government, not the next Parliament. As the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said, a future Parliament has the power to change this legislation. The sunset clause would pass that power to the Government, not to Parliament.

Wayne David: No, it would not pass to the Government, because we are talking about Parliament itself deciding.
	In our electoral system, it is the Executive who are accountable to Parliament. We are talking about parliamentary sovereignty.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman please reflect on what he just said? Is he trying to maintain the fiction that it is Parliament that makes decisions, when most decisions are in fact taken at the direction of the Prime Minister and the Government through the Whips?

Wayne David: I very much hope that in this Parliament that will not be the case. I have taken heart from the rebellious comments and actions of the hon. Gentleman. I very much hope that Parliament will assert itself through the course of this Parliament and that his concerns will prove to be mistaken.
	I hope that most Members of this House would uphold the time-honoured doctrine, despite the qualifications that have been expressed, of one Parliament being unable to bind its successor. I hope that Members do not question that. We should never seek to dictate in one Parliament what should happen in the next. I concede that, strictly speaking, the European Union Bill does not bind future Parliaments because, as has been said, those future Parliaments could modify the legislation. Nevertheless, at the very least, the Bill questions that principle and strongly goes against its spirit. I say that because the heart of the Bill will effectively come into operation during the next Parliament.
	In the other place, Lord Howell said from the Government Front Bench that the Bill will be “operative” in this Parliament. He cited the Government’s commitment to bring forward an Act of Parliament on the European stability mechanism, the so-called bail-out mechanism, and its inclusion in the treaty. The Minister has just said that an Act of Parliament will be brought forward if Croatia accedes to the European Union. The Government have said consistently that they will not agree to any transfer of sovereignty to Brussels during this Parliament. That is an important qualification. There will therefore be no need to hold a referendum. Of course, we may see a significant transfer if the Government decide to opt in to the European Court of Justice opt-in provisions. The Government are illogically against holding a referendum if they decide to opt in. That reinforces the point that the main intention behind the Bill is to influence future Governments and Parliaments. What happens during this Parliament under the Bill will be relatively small beer. We are talking about a piece of legislation that will have a direct influence on the Governments and Parliaments of the future, after the next election. That is the fundamental point. Despite the qualifications that have to be expressed for the argument to hold up, that is an important and telling point.

Mark Reckless: Is not the key point about the Bill that it makes provision for referendums at some potential future date on various aspects of our relationship with the EU? What the British people really want is a referendum now on our membership or otherwise of the EU.

Wayne David: That might be the true voice of the British Conservative party, but it is not the voice of the hon. Gentleman’s Government and it is most certainly not the voice of the Opposition.

William Cash: The little matter that the hon. Gentleman happened conveniently to leave out of that remark was the voice of the British people, was it not?

Wayne David: It is important that we recognise that the British people have a voice, which is why we have been clear that it is important that referendums are held on major constitutional issues and the issue of a single currency. It is important that the British people are engaged in the debate about Europe in a way that they have not been for a good time. However, the way to do that is through constructive and rational debate. There is nothing wrong with having referendums on big, important issues, but we are firmly against having referendums on paper clips and minutiae.

Andrea Leadsom: Does the hon. Gentleman regret the fact, then, than when in government Labour did not give the British people a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are talking about amendments from the Lords on constitutional issues. I am sure, Mr David, that you were going to come to the Dispatch Box and focus on exactly those issues.

Wayne David: I will restrain myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, and follow your strictures.
	I shall refocus on the idea of a sunset-sunrise clause. It is all the more important that these sensible proposals from the other place be given due consideration because, as has been said, never before has a Bill been deliberately designed to influence future Parliaments. I am sure that good parliamentarians would not want to undermine or even question the doctrine of free-standing Parliaments, which is why I hope the House will support Lords amendment 15. An affirmative resolution at the start of each Parliament would both ensure the legitimacy of this Parliament in making a decision and reaffirm the doctrine that one Parliament cannot bind its successor.

Charlie Elphicke: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about an affirmative resolution, but nevertheless, that resolution would depend upon the action of the Executive. Proposed subsection (2) in the Lords amendment states that
	“the Secretary of State may by order provide”
	that the provision continues, so it would be entirely up to the Government. I put it to him that his point is therefore not a good one.

Wayne David: With due respect, I think it is a good one. Purely in terms of procedure, as the Government have conceded, there needs to be an assessment of how this innovative constitutional legislation works in practice. That is a good idea, and I welcome the Minister’s concession on it. However, the logical extension of that is an affirmative resolution at the start of the next Parliament. If the Bill is working well, that resolution should be agreed to. If it is not, there should be an opportunity to reconsider. I therefore hope that the House will look favourably upon Lords amendment 15. It is modest, sensible and pragmatic, and above all else it reflects the principles of parliamentary sovereignty to which we all adhere.

Bernard Jenkin: It gives me some pleasure to speak in support of the Government in opposing these Lords amendments. It also gives me the opportunity to address the remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David). From listening to his description of, and support for, the so-called sunrise clause, I thought he advanced some unusual and novel arguments, albeit that they were supposedly supported by eminent people. I suggest that their words may have been a little removed from their context, because the hon. Gentleman is asking the House to adopt the relatively new constitutional doctrine that no legislation should be passed that is in any way an attempt to bind successor Governments. Legislation binds not future Parliaments but future Governments, unless Parliament chooses to change it. I think he gets the terms “Government” and “Parliament” muddled up. Every piece of legislation binds future Governments to some extent, unless they manage to obtain a majority in Parliament to change it.
	It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman advances his argument in respect of this Bill, given that the subjects of the referendums that would take place under it would be matters that really did bind future Parliaments. Why else do we think the treaties mention “irreversibility” and “irrevocability”—rather absolutist, undemocratic language? They are intended to bind member states into something that cannot be undone, even by those sovereign states.
	Today’s debate is partly about the fact that we remain a sovereign state, within which this Parliament—and the Queen in Parliament—remains the supreme and sovereign institution of our constitution. This sovereign Parliament is laying down new rules for future Governments that will require them to have referendums on certain issues before more powers are transferred to the European Union.

Wayne David: But that is precisely the point. What makes the Bill special, different and innovative is that it departs from virtually all other legislation in that its main provisions are applicable not to this Parliament but to the next Parliament.

Bernard Jenkin: But that applies to a great deal of legislation. I do not understand the distinction that the hon. Gentleman is attempting to make. Actually, what the Bill will do is restrict the ability of Governments to give away power and to reach decisions in the EU and present them to Parliament as faits accomplis without reference to the people. That seems to me a thoroughly good and democratic thing.
	The hon. Gentleman has given the game away this evening about the future direction of the Labour party’s policy. What he has told the House tonight is that he is quite happy for aspects of the Bill to go through, but he is not happy for its provisions to apply to a future Labour Government. He does not want a future Labour Government to have their hands tied by the necessity of referendums before they give away more powers. He wants to go back to the system to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) referred—of signing up to treaties, promising referendums on them and then ratting on those promises. That was the record of the Labour Government.
	I regard all these Lords amendments as completely unacceptable. Whatever shortcomings the Bill has—I am afraid there are many, because it is limited in scope—the amendments are designed to pull the guts out of this democratising measure. The vote threshold proposed in Lords amendment 3 is not a recognisable one but a perverse one. It does not suggest that unless the number of votes reaches a certain level, a decision cannot be taken. It suggests that if the votes do not reach a certain level, the Government and Parliament can carry on as they like. I thought the whole point of a threshold was to test whether there was a measure of consent for a particular constitutional change. The threshold in the amendment is not about testing whether there is a measure of consent but is more about testing whether there is a measure of resistance, or whether there is apathy.
	Unfortunately, the people who have largely guided European policy in this country for the past 20, 30 or 40 years have got away with what they have done largely by relying on people’s apathy and ignorance. The proposed threshold is designed to create an incentive for a Government who wish to transfer more powers to the EU to maintain high levels of apathy and ignorance. I am reminded of my late noble Friend Lord Whitelaw, who during the 1975 referendum accused the right hon. Anthony Wedgwood Benn of going around the country stirring up apathy. The amendment is a charter for going around the country and doing just that. It is completely unjustified and should be given very short shrift.
	Lords amendments 6 to 13, to clause 6, are simply designed to rip the guts out of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe very properly went through some of the things that Governments in future would be able to do without a referendum if the amendments were not disagreed to. Under the amendments, Governments could, without a referendum, give up the veto over foreign policy and over almost anything else under article 48(7). The amendments would allow the UK to join the public prosecutor and to extend the role of the public prosecutor to any serious crime with a cross-border dimension. We should think about what that means for the criminal justice system of this country. The amendments would allow Governments, without a referendum, to give up the veto over labour laws, taxes and planning, and the multi-annual financial framework and spending of the EU. The Opposition should shed no crocodile tears over how much the EU is spending if they are prepared to give up that veto without proper consent.
	The amendments would remove the veto from all the enhanced co-operation procedures, which would enable what is effectively majority voting to come into effect in a whole lot of areas. Clearly, that is an anti-democratic provision. If there is one thing that ardent advocates of the EU should have learned, it is that that structure lacks popular consent. It legislates without popular consent. If there is one thing that true Europeans should want it is that we reconnect the decisions on how powers are exercised with popular democratic consent. The Bill goes some way towards doing that.
	The sunrise provision is simply the last gasp of a past generation who are trying to neuter what is today called Euroscepticism. The support of the hon. Member for Caerphilly for Lords amendment 15 gives the lie to the idea that the new Labour party, under its new leader, is flirting with Euroscepticism. It is not. It has no intention
	of following through. It might pretend to be, and to sound, sceptical, and it might even start talking of an in-out referendum, inviting one or two of my more radical hon. Friends to fall into the trap of thinking that that is the way out, when it probably is not. However, the fact is that we need a Government who are prepared to negotiate vigorously, and to do so with the extra leverage and strengthened hand that the requirement for a referendum gives them.

Henry Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we see from Opposition Members is not so much a rebirth of Euroscepticism as referendum cynicism?

Bernard Jenkin: I agree with my hon. Friend. I rather like the hon. Member for Caerphilly, who is an engaging and assiduous parliamentarian, but I do not know whether he has given vent to his real feelings on these matters. Unfortunately, if one is speaking from the Front Bench, one’s real feelings rarely matter. One just has to do the bidding of one’s superiors. I just wish to end by—

William Cash: Before my hon. Friend ends his speech, would he be good enough to allow me to put one thought to him? The number of occasions when the referendum will be required has been dramatically, drastically and absurdly reduced by the Lords amendment. However, does he agree that the fundamental question is not whether we select what functions might or might not be affected, but the whole business of our relationship with the EU, that completely failed project, which is quite clearly causing enormous damage not only to the UK but to other countries? That is the test on which a referendum should be determined. It should not be determined just on the minutiae of individual questions, including the single currency, foreign policy and so on.

Bernard Jenkin: If I follow my hon. Friend’s question, he thinks that we should have a referendum on more questions than are raised in the Bill. I agree with him.

William Cash: My hon. Friend is a genuine friend. The referendum should be not on more questions, but the question: the European question.

Bernard Jenkin: I know that my hon. Friend does not advocate an in-out referendum, but the general direction of the EU certainly merits a referendum at some stage. I still flirt with the idea that we should have a referendum on the proposed treaty amendment. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe adverted to, four fifths of the British public think that we should have a referendum on any treaty amendment. That seemed to be the substance of the Government’s original commitment, which has been hedged in the Bill.
	Perish the thought that I am straying from my support for the Government on the Lords amendments—I would rather stay where I am—but I would finally wish to remark that the authors of the Lords amendments have a track record of their own. The introducers of the amendments are not minor figures. The amendment on the threshold was introduced by Lord Williamson of Horton—he who was secretary-general of the Commission during the passage of the Maastricht treaty; he who was the secretary-general who pushed through the social
	action programme, which negated any effective UK Government opt-out from the social chapter; and he who was one of the architects of economic and monetary union, which is now collapsing around our ears.
	In Lords amendment 8 to clause 6, which incidentally completely fails to define, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said,
	“a single, integrated military force”,
	Lord Williamson is pretending that we should have a referendum on defence matters. However, I would just pose this question: does NATO constitute
	“a single, integrated military force”?
	I would submit that it probably does not. We could therefore form a NATO-style command structure in the EU, which successive Governments have set their face against, and pass such powers into the treaties of the EU, without a referendum. I hardly think that the British people would vote for that.
	The noble Lord Hannay, former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office and former chief negotiator for the UK in the EU—an illustrious and distinguished person—is also an author of the Lords amendments. Do not mistake me: I have great admiration for the ability and sincerity of those people, but I just advert to their track record of advocating policy on the EU. Lord Hannay said quite recently that the single currency would be quite a good thing for the UK, as did Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. As recently as 26 May 2009, the latter delivered a lecture in Edinburgh on monetary union, in which he lamented that we were not trying to join the single currency.
	I raise those points not to stray from the substance of the debate, but just to question whether the people who proposed the Lords amendments should not stop trying to get Britain further into the EU, and start apologising for the appalling judgment and advice that they have given to successive Governments. Their advice has put this country into a perilous economic position—because of the state of the EU and the euro—but they have also advised successive Governments to hand over more and more powers. I would not usually criticise civil servants in public, but they are now taking part in the political process having advised successive Governments to hand over more and more powers, as a result of which Governments have been in an ever-weaker position from which to defend our national interests.
	The Bill is a small step towards starting to redress the balance in the relationship between the overweening power of the EU and the people in this country governed by the laws it makes.

Wayne David: rose —

Bernard Jenkin: I will give way briefly, but I am about to sit down.

Wayne David: I like the hon. Gentleman as he likes me. However, although we might have disagreements with distinguished ex-civil servants, it is important to place on record that all the individuals he has mentioned have been great public servants and took the lead from the Government of the day.

Bernard Jenkin: Yes, but I am left wondering whether their advice to us from the House of Lords today reflects the advice they gave to Ministers and the policies that Ministers in their day pursued. I am also left wondering whether my right hon. Friend the Minister’s advisers, when they go to the other place, will be advocating the policy he is now pursuing. I think that we are up against the establishment here. The establishment in this country is still wedded to the idea of ever-closer integration and even of joining the euro. I do not think that the British people or the Conservative party, which I think represents the aspirations of the British people on this subject, accept that view. I hope that there is a change of heart in Whitehall officialdom such that when the next generation of civil servants arrives, they will seek to re-establish the independence of the UK within the EU, rather than to carry on weakening it.

Andrea Leadsom: Does my hon. Friend agree that the referendum lock will place a new onus on successive Governments, if needs be, to work harder on any further giveaway of powers so that this and future Governments, rather than giving way to civil service opinion, will have to consider public opinion much more carefully and seek to justify any further transfer of powers? That has to be a good thing.

Bernard Jenkin: I agree that it is a good thing, but I wish that the Bill applied to some of the powers that the Government want to give away now through treaty amendments and opt-ins.

Kelvin Hopkins: I will speak on these amendments only briefly because much has been said already that I need not repeat. I took the trouble to spend some time in the Library going through the Order Paper and amendments, and I wrote against each of them, “KH against”—those are my initials, so it meant that I was personally against all of them—which seems to be in line with the Government’s position. I hope therefore that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) will advise Labour Members either to abstain or to support the Government’s position.
	The amendments have clearly been moved by people who are trying to undermine and wreck the Bill by making it toothless. It is not a strong Bill but, with the amendments, it would be feeble indeed. To restrict referendums to these three areas only would leave enormous scope for those who want constitution creep to succeed. I do not want it to succeed; I want the Government at least to consider a referendum for any significant change to any EU constitution. As to joining the euro, I think that the Labour Front Bench has become more Eurosceptic. There is no prospect of us supporting joining the euro, and one can see that very few Labour Members are willing to come along and take a strongly pro-euro position, as was perhaps the case under the previous Government and ones before that. I am pleased about that because I have been critical about joining the euro for many years.
	The euro is in very serious trouble. As of today, we are talking about Italy—not just Ireland, Portugal and Greece—as being a significant problem. I also understand that the French proposal to roll forward the Greek debt and not to take too strong action has been rejected––I suspect by Germany. The euro faces serious problems,
	and I suspect that before long the euro may unravel and that several national currencies may be re-established to allow countries to adjust to their economic needs and choose their own interest rates and parities with other currencies, including with what remains of the euro.

William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that over the past few months we have been trying to stem a tsunami, and that for practical purposes it all boils down to one thing, which is the European question as a whole? Does he also agree that the invasion of the Italian interest, and possibly the Spanish and others, is proof that the whole project is a total failure and that the British people agree?

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman recently said that the tectonic plates were starting to move. I think that he is right. Senior civil servants have even said in public that the game is over. I have talked about the sands shifting rather than tectonic plates—different metaphor, same thought. The Governments of Europe will now have to listen not just to their own people, who are increasingly Eurosceptic, but to those in the global financial system who now have doubts about the future of the euro.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said, “We’re not going to have a referendum on paper clips.” Such matters are indeed referred to the European Scrutiny Committee, of which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is Chair and, on the Committee, we leave no stone unturned, as I am sure he agrees. Paper clips are not a constitutional matter, although some people might argue that we do not want the EU interfering in our paper clips. On constitutional matters, we want to leave things open for Governments to choose when a referendum is appropriate, not to restrict the provisions to the areas in the amendments. There are those who would seek to use every opportunity to extend the EU’s control by skirting carefully around these tight definitions of areas that would require referendums. However, the Committee, led by our Chair, does a good job on non-constitutional matters—several of its members are in the Chamber now and would, I am sure, agree.
	The sunset clause puts the onus on a Government after an election to reintroduce the legislation, and no doubt a sensible Government would do that, but if there is no sunset clause, the onus is on the new Government to get rid of the legislation. They could do that by repealing it, but they would then face the anger of the British people for having taken away their referendum rights. A sunset clause is very different from the possibility of repeal after election. The House can repeal any legislation—even, I suspect, treaty obligations. Over time, we could say that we wish to withdraw from a treaty. No doubt we would have to give notice and negotiate, which would cause all sorts of difficulties, but the House could, if it chose, withdraw from a treaty. If there were to be a referendum on membership of the EU and there was a substantial vote in favour of withdrawing, the House would have to debate withdrawing from a treaty. It would have to tell that to the EU. I am not saying that that is going to happen any time soon, but it is a possibility. If a particular piece of legislation is not to the taste of a future Government, they could repeal it, but that is very different from having it automatically die at the point of an election. I therefore
	strongly oppose the sunset clause, and if there are Divisions on any of the Lords amendments, I will certainly vote against them.

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is a very wise and knowledgeable man in this regard.
	The European Union Bill is not exactly what I thought we were going to get at the start of this process. When I stood for Parliament, I was looking forward to a sovereignty Act or a Bill of Rights—something with quite a lot of guts in it. We have now had this forced marriage between my party and the Lib Dems, however, and the dowry that we paid involved the slight watering down of many of the items that I, standing on a Conservative manifesto, would have liked. This was one of them.
	After our debates on the Bill here and in Committee, during which it was lovely to learn all about how Parliament works, we happily sent the Bill on its way to the Lords. It was interesting to note that the Opposition decided that they did not have any views on Europe at that point. They decided not to vote; it was a matter of a one-line Whip, and they really preferred it if most of their Members went home. That gives me even more reason to admire the hon. Member for Luton North, who has stuck with the Bill through thick and thin during its progress through this place.
	At the end of the Bill’s Third Reading, I said that I could hear strange noises emanating from the other end of the building, as though tombs were opening and strange beasts appearing. The Minister for Europe is much more generous and benevolent than I am when describing the people in the other place who have amended the Bill. For me, the Lords amendments have raised a huge number of concerns.
	My first concern is about the turnout threshold. When the Lords were discussing the alternative vote referendum, not many of them were interested in thresholds; the wonderful Lord Williamson of Horton, who tabled amendments on thresholds in this Bill, was certainly not. He was much quieter on thresholds in the AV referendum, but I am sure that his views on thresholds in matters European were not in the least influenced by his time as a career civil servant who served as head of the European secretariat in the Cabinet Office from 1983 to 1987, and as Secretary-General of the European Commission from 1987 to 1997. He was ably supported on one particular amendment, which did not pass, by Lord Liddle, about whom I shall say more in a moment.
	Lord Liddle had an interesting take on why the Lords were trying to confuse what we had passed in the House of Commons. Speaking to a consequential amendment to amendment 5, he said that
	“if you are seriously committed to Britain’s participation in the European Union, you want a British Government to be able to respond flexibly to events and to be a good partner to our partners in the Union. We cannot completely tie our hands in advance when we do not know the future—as the example of the European stability mechanism shows.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. 311.]
	I only wish that we had had this Bill before the European stability mechanism was proposed. That would have ensured a very different financial outcome for our country.
	Those were the wonderful bits about the threshold. The amendments to clause 6 also give me great cause for concern. They are the bits that cut out all the
	referendums that we in this place want to see. Lots of the amendments tabled in the other place were tabled by Lord Hannay of Chiswick. He was the UK’s permanent representative to the European Union from 1985 to 1990; he was part of the diplomatic service, bless his soul. Others were tabled by a very special man whose credentials I cannot criticise: Lord Liddle, who was a special adviser to Tony Blair when he was Prime Minister from 1997 to 2004. He then went to Lord Mandelson’s Cabinet, and he was principal adviser to the President of the European Commission from October 2007. A third person in the Lords also tabled amendments on these matters: Lord Tugendhat. He was a Conservative Member of Parliament from 1970 to 1976, after which he was a European Commissioner. Hon. Members will be able to see a theme developing here in regard to the sort of people who have tabled amendments at the other end of the corridor and who want to wreck these measures.

Mark Reckless: Will my hon. Friend, as an ex-Member of the European Parliament, explain the difference between his position and that of the individuals he has described who, in some cases, have a pension from the European Commission? Does he agree that, were they to speak or act in a manner that was contrary to the interests of their previous employer, they might have their pensions taken away?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. That is not relevant to the amendments that the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) is addressing. He should come back to them and to his reasons for disagreeing with them.

Chris Heaton-Harris: First, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Luton North.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am interested to hear about the particular Members of the House of Lords whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but he ought also to mention a number of Conservative former Members of this House who were enthusiasts for, and indeed constructed, the policy for joining the exchange rate mechanism, which almost led to an economic collapse and certainly led to the collapse of support for the Conservative party. It is only fair to mention them as well.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Please do not steal my thunder for later. I am aware that Madam Deputy Speaker might rule me out of order, so to stay well in order, I shall detail how the peers at the other end of the corridor have taken away referendums from the people on matters of EU taxation.
	But hold on, let us not talk about Members of the House of Lords. It was difficult to understand from the comments of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) whether Labour supported the British people having a referendum on an EU tax. We know that the peers do not, because they voted on that matter, but we do not know whether Labour Members would troop through the Lobby in favour of that proposal if we were to get
	into a game of constitutional ping-pong with the Lords this evening. What about foreign policy? That referendum has been taken away from the British people. Will Labour Members support us in the Lobby on that question? What about the questions on the abolition of vetoes, the European public prosecutor’s office, the transfer of power in employment law, operational defence policy or the introduction of a carbon tax?

Graham Stringer: The hon. Gentleman is listing a lot of important subjects. Quite frankly, I would support an EU referendum on paper clips, because, whatever the referendum was about, the British people would take the question to be one of whether or not they were in favour of the European Union. Everyone would understand that. I therefore support more items being placed in the Bill on which we would be allowed to have a referendum. What the British people want is a referendum on whether we should be in or out.

Chris Heaton-Harris: If only the hon. Gentleman’s Front Bench were as wise as he is. I know that he has been campaigning on this issue for a long time, and I thank him for his contribution.
	If only those on the hon. Gentleman’s Front Bench could come clean and tell the British what they actually believe on these matters. Do they trust the British people enough to give them a vote on these matters? We are not sure, because up at the other end of the building, where the red Benches are, Labour Members—including Front Benchers—have trooped into the wrong Lobby on these matters on too many occasions. We would very much like to know where Labour Members stand on this. This is the fog of war as far as they are concerned. They want to rattle a few cages and see what comes out, but they certainly do not want to get caught stating any policy. However, these matters are fundamental to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and it would have been good to hear something definite from the hon. Member for Caerphilly tonight. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) will help us out later.

William Cash: In a sense, this whole group of amendments is a con trick and an illusion. The test to be applied in regard to the number of people who vote in an election is a matter on which I spoke very strongly in the AV referendum debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) said, many of the people who tabled amendments on thresholds were not the slightest bit interested in them at that time. There is therefore an inconsistency of principle involved. What they are promoting, and everything that they have been doing over the past 27 years since I have been on the European Scrutiny Committee, during which time I have had the pleasure of watching their perambulations and machinations, is designed to force us further and further down the route towards European integration. They have advised Governments of all hues on the Maastricht treaty, the European Government, the exchange rate mechanism and the Nice and Amsterdam treaties.
	I must have tabled the best part of 1,000 amendments against those treaties over the past 27 years, and with great pleasure. I have devoted, I suppose, almost a political lifetime to opposing every single thing that
	those noble Lords have put forward. I do not need to specify them individually; all I will say is that I regard them as having conducted a process that has led to the destruction of the European Community and, now, the European Union. One has only to look at what is happening today and to ask who is responsible for what has occurred. It has been a concert party—a concert party involving not only the United Kingdom establishment but, worse still, the European establishment alongside the United Kingdom establishment—that has led to the mess that the European Union is in now. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he came back from the European Council the other day, although we are glad that he felt obliged to deny that we would be involved in the Greek bail-out—having conceded, I am sad to say, that we would be involved in the bail-out of Portugal—he now has the opportunity, as the Prime Minister of this country, to go forward in the national interest and renegotiate the treaties, to get us out of the mess that those noble Lords, individually and collectively, have got us into.

Steven Baker: We are all grateful to my hon. Friend for his lifelong service on this issue, but on the esoterica of this group of amendments, can he clarify for me that, taken as a whole, they are simply spoiling amendments?

William Cash: They are, and it is for that reason that I will not be able to vote for them, even though I happen to have some sympathy for the idea of a reasonable test for referendums. However, these amendments are a blind—an attempt to get people to go along with the 40% test for the electorate on the one hand, but also to associate them with a whole range of matters that are entirely inimical to the interests of the United Kingdom. I am not particularly interested in the list that the Government have produced; as I said at the beginning of the proceedings on this Bill, I think that it is a mouse of a Bill. The issue on which we now need to concentrate is the big landscape and the fact that, as the European Council on Foreign Relations paper argued the other day, Maastricht has to be revised. We will have to return to the question of what kind of Europe we want.
	This list of proposed matters—which will never come up in this Parliament, as we know—is, therefore, a blind in its own way, but to reduce it to three core issues really makes it an absurdity. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that on the big landscape, this is the time for us to take a bigger, more responsible and more statesmanlike view, in the interests of the people of this country, to see the European question as the failure that it is and to get down to the serious business of renegotiating all the treaties and moving to an association of nation states, so that we can work together co-operatively, rather than by co-ordination, to deal with the real, practical problems that this country faces—the Brazils, Indias and Chinas of this world—instead of dancing on the head of a pin, as we are with most of this Bill.
	My argument to my right hon. Friend is very simple. He may have the advantage of having come forward with a few proposals that touch at the margins of this issue, but the real question is what is he—or, indeed, the Prime Minister—going to do to get us out of the mess that those treaties have got not only us but the people in Europe into? Indeed, young people aged between 18 and
	25 in several countries are now suffering unemployment of 47%. It is absolutely impossible to accept that, and as I said in the 1990s, when this whole system collapses, it would not surprise me to see the rise of the far right and massive unemployment, destabilising the entire European Union, with the most devastating consequences for the international order. That is the problem that we are faced with, and that is why these amendments are not to be accepted.
	Lords amendment 3 disagreed to.
	Lords amendment 4 agreed to.
	Lords amendments 5 to 13 disagreed to.

Clause 18
	 — 
	Status of EU law dependent on continuing statutory basis

David Lidington: I beg to move Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 14.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment (b).

David Lidington: I should like first to recognise that the issue we are debating is, to an extent, an issue of detail that has aroused some fairly intensive debate, involving some extremely experienced and high-powered lawyers. It is not an issue related to the rationale for clause 18 as a whole, and I welcome the acceptance by the House of Lords of the rationale for a provision of this nature. Indeed, the author of Lords amendment 14, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said when he presented his amendment on Report in the other place that there was very little between his position and that of the Government on the point of principle, saying:
	“It is important that this declaratory measure”—
	that is, clause 18—
	“should be made because of the theory sometimes propounded that Community law in the United Kingdom derives from the treaty alone by virtue of the European Union legal order. I believe that it is right that we should make it plain at this juncture that that is not so.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. 790.]
	However, noble Lords who voted in support of Lords amendment 14 took the view that the European Communities Act 1972 is the only route by which EU law takes effect in the United Kingdom, and that all the references to directly effective or applicable EU law in other Acts are linked to that Act. Lords amendment 14 therefore amends clause 18 to refer specifically to the European Communities Act 1972, rather than to the wider reference point of “an Act of Parliament”, in order to affirm that this is the sole route by which directly effective and directly applicable EU law takes effect in the UK.

William Cash: I rather suspect that my right hon. Friend expected that I would rise at about this point. Very quickly, the European Communities Act 1972 might be the Act of Parliament by virtue of which we voluntarily entered into the acceptance of European law—as it has accumulated, like a tsunami, since 1972, both widening and deepening—but does he not agree that the crucial words are those of Lord Bridge in the Factortame case,
	who said that we voluntarily did that? Therefore, the special significance of the 1972 Act has to be tempered by the fact that it was what Parliament decided at that time. That is the crucial question to which we shall turn shortly.

David Lidington: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure he will recall the debate on these matters on Second Reading and particularly on the first day in Committee when we spent an entire day debating clause 18. He will also recall—it is clear from the Hansard—that I made it clear on behalf of the Government that the European Communities Act 1972 had effect in this country, so European law had effect here insofar as it stemmed from that piece of legislation, because Parliament had willed that that should be the case. If a future Parliament were to decide to repeal that Act, it would be perfectly within that Parliament’s power so to do, although my hon. Friend would be the first to appreciate that there would be immediate consequences for the UK’s treaty obligations. There would be a political crisis at that point. We debated that important issue of principle for a day in Committee, as I said, but I want to try to focus on the Lords amendments now.

William Cash: Indeed. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend knows I must move on to ask him whether he accepts that the most important thing to avoid in the context of the assertions of certain members of the Supreme Court—criticised by the late Lord Bingham in severe terms—to the effect that Parliament has only a qualified sovereignty and that the ultimate authority effectively rests with them. It is precisely for that reason that we should be extremely anxious to ensure that no words are imported into this clause, as the Bill leaves this House and will finally be enacted, that would in any way allow the Supreme Court to move in on that territory and claim ultimate authority.

David Lidington: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I have been generous to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) as the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, but his interventions are getting very long. I realise that these are important points, but he is always able to catch my eye if he wants to expand on them.

David Lidington: I make two points to my hon. Friend. First, the only reason why the Supreme Court has power to adjudicate here on European Union matters is because Parliament has provided for directly effective and directly applicable EU law to have effect in the United Kingdom legal order by virtue of passing statutes that give European law that direct effect and application here. Secondly, as I think my hon. Friend knows—he is being a bit mischievous—he is trying to tempt me again on to a much broader issue, which is the important philosophical question of whether ultimate legislative supremacy lies with Parliament or whether parliamentary sovereignty is a construct of the common law controlled by judges. Speaking as an elected parliamentarian, I am quite clear and argue quite naturally that Parliament as the elected limb of body politic must have the ultimate
	say, but in making that case we are entering into a philosophical debate that goes way beyond the parameters of the European Union Bill, let alone Lords amendment 14.
	Let me return to the Lords amendment. I am mindful of the arguments advanced by Lord Mackay of Clashfern and his supporters in the House of Lords, and I greatly appreciate their legal expertise. We considered Lord Mackay’s arguments very carefully both before the debate in the other place and following the Lords acceptance of the amendment. I sought further legal advice on this point, and the Government’s view remains that although the European Communities Act 1972 is indeed the principal means by which directly effective or directly applicable EU law takes effect in the UK, a number of other Acts of Parliament also give effect to EU law independently of the 1972 Act. For example, provisions of the Scotland Act 1998, of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 put Ministers from the devolved Administrations under an obligation to act in accordance with EU law. Some of those settlements define EU obligations in a manner similar to the language used in section 2(1) of the 1972 Act—but, significantly, they do so not by reference to that Act.
	The Government are therefore concerned that, were this House to agree with the Lords amendment as it stands, it could create the risk that the courts might interpret this clause as restricting the ability of legislation other than the 1972 Act to incorporate directly applicable or directly effective EU law into UK law. That, in turn, could ultimately mean that clause 18 could be interpreted as being more than declaratory, which would rather undermine what we are trying to do with this Bill. This would not, in our view, reflect the law accurately, and so we seek to disagree with the Lords amendment as currently framed.
	In that sense, I agree entirely with the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), but I also recognise Lord Mackay’s point that the 1972 Act is the primary conduit for directly effective and directly applicable EU law to take effect in the United Kingdom. In recognition of this concern, the Government propose a change of wording to the Lords amendment that would retain the reference to the European Communities Act 1972 but, importantly, also refer to the existence of other Acts of Parliament that also give effect to EU law.

Wayne David: I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point and I have sympathy with his argument. Crucial to the argument, it seems to me, are the words
	“by virtue of an Act of Parliament”.
	What is the difference between putting those words at the end rather than at the start of the clause, where they were initially?

David Lidington: I decided to include the words on the basis of the best legal advice available to me across Government at the time. When preparing the Bill for introduction into this House, I examined the wording and the question of whether a reference to the 1972 Act alone would be appropriate. I was given very clear legal advice that, because of the other statutes that make reference to the application of EU law, a simple reference
	to the 1972 legislation would not suffice. That explains the original wording of the Bill that came before the House of Commons.
	What we have sought to do in framing our amendments to the Lords amendment is to recognise the view that the other place took that clause 18 should incorporate language that recognises the particular importance of the 1972 legislation. We see no reason why we should not amend the clause to make a specific reference to the 1972 Act so long as the clause also makes reference to those other Acts that give effect to EU law. This reflects the Government’s consistent position that other Acts of Parliament— independently of the European Communities Act 1972—might also allow for the incorporation of directly effective and directly applicable EU law into the UK legal order.

Bernard Jenkin: I still do not understand what was wrong with the Government’s original drafting.

David Lidington: We believe that the original drafting met the tests that we had set to implement our policy of having a declaratory clause. What we are trying to do is to express through Government amendments the point made in the House of Lords that the 1972 legislation is of particular importance, while preserving the point of principle that we believe was incorporated in the original language as debated by the House of Commons.

Wayne David: rose—

David Lidington: I want to make some progress.
	It is not only the devolution legislation that mentions European Union law. The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Chiropractors Act 1994 and the Competition Act 1998 are further examples of legislation that allows European Union law to have direct effect in this country. Section 9A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act requires the United Kingdom to make a disqualification order against a person in certain circumstances, including circumstances in which an undertaking commits a breach of competition law under either article 81 or article 82 of the EC treaty—now articles 101 and 102 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. That Act refers directly to the treaty provisions without referring to the 1972 Act.
	The amendment accepted by the other place removed the reference that makes it explicit that only by virtue of such Acts does directly effective and directly applicable EU law take effect in this country. Removing that reference leaves open the possibility of arguments that directly effective and directly applicable EU law could enter our law by other means, thus undermining the rationale behind the clause. The amendments that the Government propose seek to restore that important qualification, and to remove any doubt about whether directly effective or applicable EU law could enter United Kingdom law by other means.

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Lidington: We welcome the acceptance in the House of Lords of the principle of clause 18, and recognise the concerns raised by colleagues there about the formulation of the clause. We believe that our amendments will both meet the concerns expressed by
	the proposers of the amendment and ensure that the provision reflects the law accurately. I therefore urge Members in all parts of the House to support them.

William Cash: I am sorry that the Minister deemed it unnecessary, or undesirable, to accept my intervention, but that does not prevent me from making my point.
	As the Minister will recall, it was the clear view of the European Scrutiny Committee that clause 18 was unnecessary. I am glad to say that a conversation in which I engaged today with one of my—let us call him—long-standing contestants in matters European, Lord Howe of Aberavon, confirmed that he shared our view. I have great respect for his legal knowledge, and I am delighted that we have achieved such a degree of understanding.
	The Government are embarking on what is, in matters constitutional, an extremely dangerous path to tread: a primrose path that could lead to disaster. I know that there was a great deal of detailed discussion—I hear of these things—with Lord MacKay of Clashfern, who, after all, used to be Lord Chancellor, and indeed was Lord Chancellor at the time of the Maastricht treaty. I remember well, as I am sure he does, that the whole business of European government was conceded, to our deep regret; hence the rebellion which I had the pleasure to lead.
	The Government appear to have been caught on the horns of a dilemma, and I think that they should have dealt with that in a different way. On one hand they are confronted with the European Scrutiny Committee, the expert legal advice that it has received, the further consideration that it has given to these questions throughout the intervening period, and its conclusion that clause 18 is unnecessary and undesirable. On the other hand—the other horn of the dilemma—is the view of Lord MacKay of Clashfern that the amendment is merely declaratory.
	Unfortunately, in taking the line of least resistance—which, I am afraid, is their hallmark in matters European—the Government have fallen between two stools, and impaled themselves on the horns of the dilemma. I think that Members should feel impelled, as I do—for very sound reasons, which I shall now explain—to vote against the Government’s amendments and echo the concern expressed by the European Scrutiny Committee, which was supported by powerful advice.
	As I have said, our Committee took a great deal of evidence from some very distinguished constitutional and legal experts. It is all on the record, and we need not go into the detail—what we need to discuss is what has happened since then—but I will say that, as Chairman of the Committee, I ensured that the evidence was evenly balanced. We weighed up all the evidence from the greatest experts who could possibly express a view on the subject, and reached conclusions that were supported by the majority of that evidence.
	The Committee took the view that the principle of parliamentary supremacy should not be declared in statute, and that using the words
	“It is only by virtue of an Act of Parliament that”
	in a statutory provision such as clause 18 is tantamount to stating that there shall be parliamentary supremacy. However, the very stating of that undermines the central
	premise, which is that it does not need to be stated, and the danger of stating it is that, ultimately, the Supreme Court will be allowed into this sacrosanct arena.
	We are not talking about some technicality; we are talking about the very reasons for the existence of this House of Commons. Law is passed on the basis of views that are taken in a freely elected democratic assembly, which themselves refer to the decisions made by the electors in a general election. The issue of parliamentary sovereignty in the context of the European Union is that ever since Maastricht, and to some extent before it, decisions made, for example, by majority vote have often proved inimical to policies espoused by elements of the Conservative party, and indeed by our manifesto.
	One simple example is the repatriation of powers. The Government are faced with a conflict. In December 2005, when the Conservatives were in opposition, the present Prime Minister said that there should be a repatriation of social and employment legislation. Both Back Benchers and those now in the Government—including the Minister for Europe—opposed the Lisbon treaty in every respect. For the first time since 1972, the party was totally united. Now we find ourselves in the difficult position of being confronted with amendments that would allow an infringement of sovereignty, subject to final interpretation by the courts. The reversal of the hierarchy of norms that parliamentary supremacy implies is itself put at risk by the wording that the Government have chosen in their attempt to balance the views of Lord Mackay of Clashfern and the European Scrutiny Committee. The Government have chosen the easy way out, but it is not going to be easy—or, indeed, of any value whatever. It is extremely damaging to the national interest and the constitutional status of this House of Parliament. It may seem to be a few words, but unfortunately this issue has profound consequences.
	The debate in the House of Lords could be said to have shown that a legitimate confusion can arise from enshrining in statute an unnecessary declaratory statement. To quote a former first parliamentary counsel’s comment: “unnecessary words turn septic.” Unnecessary words do not turn Eurosceptic; rather, they turn septic. That is what first parliamentary counsel said and, unfortunately, that is what both the Government’s amendment to the amendment of Lord Mackay of Clashfern and his amendment itself achieve. They create a kind of septicaemia in the adjudication of matters of sovereignty, and will give the courts the purchase that was originally implied in the explanatory notes, which referred to the common law principle. We went into this matter both earlier in the debate and in our report. When the Bill went to the House of Lords, the Government took the infamous reference to the “common principle” out of their explanatory notes—I give them credit for having listened to us on that. They did so because they knew of the dangers inherent in respect of the courts, and certain members of the Supreme Court who have an increasing tendency to make certain comments, as expressed in the Jackson case and Lord Bingham’s criticism, by name, of the judges involved. He was extremely upset and concerned, and for very good reasons.
	Two additional problems arise from the fact that Lord Mackay’s amendment refers to the European Communities Act 1972. First, let me stress that my comments here should not be taken to prejudice the remarks I have already made that it is not about the 1972 Act exceptionally, but rather that Parliament has
	voluntarily agreed, as Lord Bridge said in the Factortame case, to incorporate that Act and therefore to allow all the consequences that flow from it, which are accumulating and, in my view, are extremely damaging to the United Kingdom and the people of this country in their daily lives. If we specify “European Communities Act 1972” rather than “an Act of Parliament”, an argument can properly be made that we are, effectively, disabling Parliament from giving effect to European law in future by means other than the European Communities Act—or, in other words, by a new Act. This is the law of unintended consequences, but made much more serious given the context of parliamentary supremacy.
	The other problem is a technical question about an important issue relating to statutory interpretation. However much we in this House may wish to regard this matter as just a matter of debate, unfortunately when it gets into the clutches of the courts and certain elements in the Supreme Court who have a tendency to want to push the envelope on these issues, the reality is that it ceases to be a technical question, and becomes a very important constitutional question. I state unequivocally that that has led me to the view that I have to resist the Government’s amendment, and I urge other Members to do the same. If we specify “European Communities Act 1972”, a question arises as to whether that reference would cover future amendments to that Act after this Bill is enacted.
	I am going into the details of all this because I want them to be on the record; the devil is in the detail. The Interpretation Act 1978 is the basis on which I believe the provision under discussion will be interpreted by the courts. Once it has left this House with these offensive words in it, as prescribed by Lord Mackay of Clashfern and the advice he has given to the House of Lords, it will become the law of the land and will then ultimately end up in the Supreme Court, with extremely unpredictable unintended consequences. There will then be a very dangerous situation. That is why I am taking the trouble to set all this out. The Supreme Court also has an obligation to consider what has been said in Parliament.
	Turning to the point about statutory interpretation, as I have said the question arises as to whether the reference to the European Communities Act 1972 would cover future amendments to it after this Bill has been enacted. Section 20(2) of the Interpretation Act is ambiguous on this very difficult point, as is said in Francis Bennion’s superb volume on statutory interpretation. Section 20 provides:
	“Where an Act refers to an enactment, the reference, unless the contrary intention appears, is a reference to that enactment as amended, and includes a reference thereto as extended or applied, by or under any other enactment, including any other provision of that Act.”
	In a case on an analogous provision in a tax statute, the court in question held that applying it to future amendments was to give it
	“a width of application which the wording, at best equivocal, could not bear, especially in a taxing statute.”
	The Lords amendment therefore raises a doubt about whether clause 18 will apply to future amendments of the European Communities Act 1972 and consequently raises an unnecessary doubt about the application of the principle of dualism to such future amendments—in other words, opening the door to interpretation by the courts on this fundamental question.

Bernard Jenkin: May I just test my understanding? Am I right in thinking that my hon. Friend is saying that the original wording of the clause, covered by the Interpretation Act, covered everything, but referring specifically to the European Communities Act 1972 serves to limit the meaning of the clause so that future amendments to the 1972 Act will not be covered by it and are therefore subject to the interpretation of the Supreme Court?

William Cash: Effectively yes, and that is the one thing we wanted to avoid above all else. That is why the Committee took the view that it did on clause 18, as shared by Lord Howe of Aberavon, who is by no means a Eurosceptic. On a matter of clear interpretation after very considerable consideration—he is both a former Foreign Secretary and distinguished Queen’s counsel who brought the European Communities Act into being in the House of Commons in 1972—he says that clause 18 is completely unnecessary. He agrees with the Committee, and now, for the sake of trying to counter-balance the views of Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the Government are falling into the trap that I have described and making the potential for interpretation by the courts extremely dangerous.
	If there is to be a clause 18, for the reasons that I have outlined, the version that went to the Lords from the Commons should be preferred to the Lords amendment in the name of Lord Mackay of Clashfern. As I proposed in the amendment to Government amendment (b), the words “Act of Parliament” are to be preferred to “the European Communities Act 1972”. The Government’s amendment addresses these issues, but it would be much better not to state the principle at all; the amendment fails to deal with the trap that has been set. I know Lord Mackay of Clashfern to be a distinguished and canny Scots lawyer, and he understands exactly what he intends. He has, by the most clever sleight of hand, reinserted into the provision—[Interruption.] I see the Minister shaking his head and I shall give way to him.

David Lidington: I respect my hon. Friend’s expertise in this area, but to suggest that Lord Mackay of Clashfern would be party to any kind of sleight of hand is not to do him justice, and I hope that my hon. Friend would reconsider that point.

William Cash: I have no problem in acknowledging someone’s powerful views on constitutional questions. For example, I remember during the Maastricht proceedings that the noble Lord was quite clear on the question of whether the Maastricht treaty took us further and deeper into the integration process. He argued that it did not make any difference in principle because the 1972 Act already conceded that there had been a change in the constitutional position and, to all intents and purposes, there was, thus, no real change in the substance of the issue. That is not to accuse anybody; it is merely to recognise that they have a constitutional viewpoint and to recognise how they really regard the encroachments on our sovereignty, which were evident in the Jackson case, in the evidence that the Committee received from many distinguished witnesses and in the fact that the Government’s previous explanatory notes led us into a situation where we criticised the Government and they withdrew the offensive words, precisely for the reasons that I am presenting.
	The reality is that we have caught out the Government on their wording and they have now acquiesced in other wording which opens the door to statutory interpretation by the Supreme Court. That is the kernel of this matter. Whether or not my right hon. Friend the Minister really likes the way in which I have expressed this is neither here nor there. The real question, on which I challenge him, is this: does he deny that the wording in the Government’s amendment, in response to the Lords amendment, imports the opportunity for the Supreme Court to apply statutory interpretation and, thereby, to create a situation that could be best avoided, as set out by Lord Howe of Aberavon, our European Scrutiny Committee and the evidence that we received from so many people, by having no clause at all, rather than the current clause 18?
	The Minister knows that I feel very strongly about the fact that we promised in our manifesto a sovereignty Act, and that was the consequence of discussions at the very highest level with the leadership. We knew that that was put into the manifesto as a direct response to the promises that were made. The bottom line is that we were given a second-rate provision that is unnecessary and that has since been criticised by the European Scrutiny Committee and eminent constitutional experts, including Lord Howe of Aberavon, and what the Government are introducing merely acquiesces to a degree in what Lord Mackay of Clashfern has proposed. That simply is not good enough and the Government should withdraw the proposed clause while they have the opportunity to do so. It is for those reasons that I shall be voting against it.

Wayne David: This long debate, which has taken place over a number of months, has almost come full circle. I recall that we began our deliberations with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and others saying that what had been originally promised was a sovereignty Act but what was proposed was a truncated, boiled-down and diluted version of their intention in the form of a solitary clause—clause 18. Whichever permutation of clause 18 one looks at, be it what was originally suggested by the Government, the Lords amendment or the Government amendment to the Lords amendment, one finds that it is basically a declaratory statement. It does not take us back or forward; it is a pious declaration, a statement of fact and a statement of the legal position at the moment. Therefore, it does not do any harm and, in fact, it could possibly be useful.
	There has been a modest change of emphasis in Government amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, and it is a sensible one. The words “by virtue of an Act of Parliament” were omitted from the Lords amendment and we were concerned that the emphasis was being placed solely on the 1972 Act. Although we recognise that that is the most important piece of legislation regarding the primacy of European law, other items of legislation are involved here. I was particularly pleased that the Minister referred to the legislation on the devolved institutions, as that is important in ensuring that we take a comprehensive approach. Therefore, the Government have put forward a modest improvement to what was suggested by the Lords. I recognise that they have gone some way towards accommodating what the Lords have said and I welcome that, which is why we will be supporting the Government amendment.

William Cash: Is the hon. Gentleman actually saying that he agrees with the Government’s proposal, notwithstanding what has been said by the European Scrutiny Committee, Lord Howe of Aberavon and all the other people I have mentioned, and notwithstanding the most powerful legal advice that has been submitted, which suggests that this is a very unwise and dangerous move, for the reasons that I have set out?

Wayne David: With all due respect, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I have read in great detail all the evidence that was given to the European Scrutiny Committee and I think that his summation of it is his interpretation of the evidence given. Most of the witnesses to the European Scrutiny Committee said, as I have said, that clause 18 is a statement of fact and that it does not take us forward or back. Therefore, we should not get hot under the collar about it.

Bernard Jenkin: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes. I had not intended to take part in this debate, as I took part extensively in the debate on clause 18 in Committee and I thought that we had covered all the issues then. I had become reconciled to accepting the clause as the Government had drafted it and I came to today’s debate expecting my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) to make a technical argument, but one that would not necessarily excite me—of course I was wrong. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) says that the clause does not take us back and it does not take us forward, but he has missed the fundamental point about the revised drafting of the clause. I am not a lawyer—I am an amateur lawyer—but ever since we started discussing this clause earlier this year, I have had the sinking feeling that we are in very deep water and that we are potentially creating completely unnecessary problems for this House and for Parliament. I say that because the sovereignty of Parliament is axiomatic; it is self-evident and it is a historical fact.
	We do not need to legislate in any way to maintain the sovereignty of Parliament. There would have been some virtue in a declaratory Act with the legal effect of returning powers to the United Kingdom from the European Union to redress our relationship so that we had the ability to negotiate, but this clause, which has erroneously been nicknamed the “sovereignty” clause but is no such thing, does not even attempt to do that. In fact, it does not even refer to the word “sovereignty”.
	The clause puts in statute issues that are contested by the European Union legal structures in a context that means that the Supreme Court might have to interpret them. We know that some justices of our Supreme Court question the very notion of the sovereignty of Parliament as I have described it and think it is a matter of common law rather than of history and fact. I believe they are wrong and that Parliament will always be able to prove them wrong by legislating, as statute law always overrides common law.

William Cash: Would my hon. Friend be interested to know that I was talking to an extremely eminent lawyer, although I hesitate to say who it was, and when he heard my arguments on clause 18, he said, “If a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court took the view that you are taking, it would be open to Parliament the next
	day”—he used those words—“to reverse that”? That troubles me, because if that happened it would precipitate a 100% crisis.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to that conversation. We are potentially engaged in the early skirmishes of a dispute between Parliament and the judiciary about which has supremacy. By legislating on this issue, which touches on the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament, we are tempting the justices of the Supreme Court to begin toying with those concepts. They have already done so in some of their ancillary statements to cases—I forget the right word for such statements. We know that they are tempted in that direction and putting this clause into statute, as the evidence received by the European Scrutiny Committee showed, could be the red rag to the bull, providing meat for the justices of the Supreme Court to chew on.

Wayne David: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I am just coming to the hon. Gentleman’s point.
	I was minded to accept that we had done such a thing before I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Stone speak, but he has described how the situation might have been made worse than it would have been under the previous drafting of the clause. He referred to section 20 of the Interpretation Act 1978, which, if I understand it correctly, already stipulates that when an Act is referred to in an Act of Parliament that Act is deemed not to be constantly updated by subsequent amendments. The Act referred to in an Act of Parliament stands as it stood at the time of enactment and by specifying the European Communities Act 1972 in this clause we are opening up the possibility that at some stage in the future the 1972 Act will be amended but this clause will not apply to the amended Act or to the amendments to the Act, but only to the Act as it stands now. Should there be a dispute between the Supreme Court and Parliament about the sovereignty issues that touch on our relationship with the European Union, the question would be left open with more ambiguity rather than less.
	Given that we started from an entirely unsatisfactory position, I must say that I will support my hon. Friend the Member for Stone in the Lobby tonight if his amendment is put to a vote. It is important to put it on the record that the situation is unsatisfactory, that it is not as we wanted it to be when we set out our manifesto and that we are possibly making the situation worse. If we accept the amendment from the other place, we might make the situation even worse, and the very fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister has adjusted his position to accommodate the wording from the other place adds to the sinking feeling that the Government do not stand on stable legal ground and that they can be pushed around by extremely able, intelligent and clever people who nevertheless have a different view from my right hon. Friend and I on the question of our future relationship with the European Union. I am left uneasy and I want to register that unease tonight.

David Lidington: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for their participation in the debate and I shall be brief in my response. I want to deal with the point of principle as well as the important point of detail about the interaction between this clause, the Government amendment and the Interpretation Act 1978.

Wayne David: Before the Minister goes on, may I cast his mind back to the trenchant criticism from the European Scrutiny Committee about the explanatory notes that accompanied the Bill and, in particular, those on clause 18? I seem to recall the Minister giving the House a commitment that the explanatory notes would be examined and, if necessary, redrafted. Has that redrafting occurred and will there be further redrafting in the context of his amendment tonight?

David Lidington: The explanatory notes were changed when they were reprinted before the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, just as I gave the House an undertaking that they would be. We amended the notes to make it clear that the references to common law in the relevant section were meant in contradistinction to statute law and that we were not commenting, as a Government and in either the Bill or the notes, on the important but much broader philosophical debate about the origins of parliamentary sovereignty.
	Let me deal first with the point of general principle to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, in particular, referred. It has always been the Government’s position that clause 18 is declaratory of the existing state of our law in making it clear that European Union law has direct effect and application in this country for one reason and one reason only: namely, Parliament has given it that effect through primary legislation. I differ from my hon. Friend in that I continue to believe that it is valuable for us to have this declaratory clause on the statute book to serve as a clear expression of Parliament’s will and as an abiding point of reference for the courts if they are invited in future to consider again the sort of arguments that have previously been brought before them, most notably by the prosecution in the metric martyrs case, to the effect that European law has acquired over time an autonomous authority of its own that does not derive from Acts of Parliament.

Steven Baker: May I say how grateful I am that my right hon. Friend has given this clear statement of the Government’s and Parliament’s intent? We appear to have disappeared into such esoterica that even for one who takes a close interest in the clause it is almost impossible to understand the debate. Will the Minister confirm that should judges need to rule on this clause, they will be able to refer to Hansard to be absolutely clear what Parliament’s intent was?

David Lidington: Judges will of course look first at statute but it is also the case, following the Pepper v. Hart judgment, that if the courts are in any way uncertain about the meaning of a piece of legislation, they can look at what the Minister of the day said on behalf of the Government, as recorded in Hansard, as an aid to interpretation.

William Cash: That may well be but as the Minister rightly says it will be the Minister’s view that is taken into account by the court and the Whips will make darn certain this evening that we lose this vote. That is the problem and that is one reason why I take such exception to this.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend has made his point. Not only Lord Mackay but the Lords Constitution Committee recognised that clause 18 is a reflection of the existing position in United Kingdom law. I do not want to get into a long argument with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone about the report of the European Scrutiny Committee, but that report focused largely on the bigger question of whether parliamentary sovereignty was a common-law principle. I repeat to the House what I said during Committee—that this clause does not get into that issue at all. It makes clear the basis on which European law takes effect in our domestic legal order.
	Let me address the detailed point that has been put. Both my hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Harwich and North Essex argued that the reference to the 1972 Act taken together with the Interpretation Act meant there was a risk of future amendments to the 1972 Act falling outside the scope of clause 18. This point was specifically considered in the drafting of the Government’s amendments to the Lords amendment. That is exactly why the Government’s amendments, especially amendment (b), do not limit the clause to the 1972 Act but also take account of all Acts that might give rise to directly applicable and enforceable EU law, which will include any Acts amending the 1972 Act. I hope that with that reassurance colleagues on both sides of the House will be able to endorse the Government’s amendments.
	Amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 14.
	Amendment (b) propo sed to Lords amendment 14.— (Mr Lidington .)

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 485, Noes 22.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Amendment (b) made to Lords amendment 14.
	Lords amendment 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21
	 — 
	Commencement

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 15.—(Mr Lidington . )
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Lindsay Hoyle: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 301, Noes 212.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 15 disagreed to.
	Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 3, 5 to 13 and 15;
	That Mr David Lidington, James Duddridge, Mr Wayne David, Mr David Hamilton and Mr David Heath be members of the Committee;
	That Mr David Lidington be the Chair of the Committee;
	That three be the quorum of the Committee.
	That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(James  Duddridge .)
	Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Rights and Protection of Victims

Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 10610/11 and Addenda 1 and 2 relating to the Draft Directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, No. 10613/11 and Addenda 1 and 2 relating to the Draft Regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters, No. 10612/11 and Addenda 1 and 2 relating to a Commission Communication–strengthening victims’ rights in the EU and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 16 May 2011 relating to a Council Resolution on a Roadmap for strengthening the rights and protection of victims, in particular in criminal proceedings; and welcomes the opportunity to consider views on whether the UK should opt in to the draft Directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims and the Draft Regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters.
	I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for calling the debate. The Government are currently actively considering in detail the European Commission’s proposals on victims, and in particular whether the United Kingdom should opt into the proposed directive on victims and regulation on protection orders. There has already been some scrutiny of the protection order regulation, but it is useful to have this opportunity to hear Members’ views on the proposals on the Floor of the House, to inform our decisions.
	The Government are obviously committed to supporting the victims of crime. One of the main objects of the criminal justice system, as well as punishing those guilty of serious criminal offences, is offering protection and support to the victims of crime. We welcome the priority that the European Commission is giving the matter and the further impetus provided by the Hungarian Government, who will hold the presidency of the European Union for the second half of this year. There was a Budapest declaration setting out their intention, supported by the Council of the European Union, to deal with various matters concerning the victims of crime in the course of their presidency.
	I am glad to say that this country is seen by the Commission as an example of best practice on supporting victims. The Government hope to strengthen what we do, but there is no doubt that we are well ahead of the vast majority of members of the European Union in what we do now.
	The thing that the House should particularly have regard to is that our own citizens are increasingly travelling and working across the EU. If a British citizen is unfortunate enough to fall victim to crime in another member state, I do not think that they always get the level of support that they would expect in similar circumstances in the United Kingdom. The Government see one of the main attractions of this package of work as, among other things, helping our citizens to get the full support that they ought to have in a modern and civilised state when they are victims of crime. We want to ensure that British citizens are provided with the information, support and protection that they rightly expect to receive when they fall victim to crime in any EU member state.
	My officials have been working with the Commission to share our experiences of supporting victims, and to consider how the existing EU framework agreement on
	the subject might be improved. The Commission, I am glad to say, has taken on board many of our suggestions in its recent proposals. I am especially pleased that the proposed directive takes into account the particular role of victims in our common law system. We encounter drafting problems at least in quite a lot of proposals in this field, because, like the Irish, Cypriots and Maltese, we tend to have a common law system, whereas the rest of Europe does not. It is necessary to ensure that the procedural differences and the practices of different countries are respected in such proposals.
	The Government are committed to targeting resources towards those victims who need them the most. We continue to develop our own proposals on victims—we hope to come forward with some in the autumn—but meanwhile, we will continue to work with our European partners to ensure that any EU action on victims supports our approach. We are particularly trying to ensure that any requirements imposed upon or accepted by member states are proportionate to the needs of victims and properly targeted on those with the most important needs.
	I wait to hear whether there are any objections in principle to the objectives being pursued by the Commission and the Hungarian presidency, and the vast majority of the member states on the European Council—as far as I am aware, that means all member states on the Council—but I think they are unlikely. It is plainly desirable that we consider spreading best practice across the Union when it comes to protecting victims of any nationality who have the misfortune to fall prey to crime in any of our countries. However, I look forward to hearing the views of right hon. and hon. Members on any particular aspects of the package of proposals before us to which they want to draw the House’s and the Government’s attention.

Stephen Twigg: I welcome the opportunity for the House to debate this important draft European Union directive. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will have constituents who have been affected by crimes elsewhere in the EU, and I want to take this opportunity to share with the House the case of my constituents, Lesley and Steve Dunne, which highlights the very serious shortcomings in current practice and legislation.
	I echo the Secretary of State’s opening remarks. As he said, we want proper support that reflects our modern and civilised state. He also said that we should require a directive to be both proportionate and properly targeted, and I very much agree with him on that. Mr and Mrs Dunne were badly let down by the legal system in Spain. They had lived there and their son Gary was murdered there in 2006. It took the family three years to have their son’s body repatriated to the United Kingdom. Throughout their campaign to have his body returned, Mr and Mrs Dunne, whom I now count as good friends, showed great courage, fortitude and incredible dignity in the face of the many barriers and hurdles to securing what most families would take for granted—being able to bury their son.
	The draft directive before the House will go some way to addressing some of the problems that they faced and which other families have faced as well. It seeks to ensure that member states recognise that, where a person’s death has been caused by a criminal offence, the family
	members are to be defined as victims. Mr and Mrs Dunne were not treated with the respect that the House would expect for the parents of a murdered son. The Secretary of State was right that in many regards this country is at the forefront of best practice in the treatment of victims. We have a long way to go, but compared with the experience in Spain that I am outlining, we are well advanced. The draft directive sets a minimum standard for access to information and support. If this is adopted successfully across the EU, I sincerely hope that other families affected by the death of a loved one in Europe will not have to endure what Mr and Mrs Dunne have.
	Steve and Lee Dunne learned of their son’s murder not from the Spanish or British authorities, but from a friend in Spain who had heard of the murderer’s arrest not from the Spanish authorities, but from another friend who had read about it in the local press. When Steve and Lee received a call from the authorities informing them that the perpetrator had been arrested, they flew immediately to Spain in the belief that it meant that Gary’s body could be repatriated for a funeral in their home city of Liverpool. This was not the case, however. They flew to Spain, where they discovered that they had been called there simply for the courts to ask them whether they wanted the suspect prosecuted. The suspect had fled Spain to evade capture.
	Mr and Mrs Dunne were appalled. They had not been properly advised of the reason they had been called to Spain. As far as they were concerned, of course they wanted their son’s alleged murderer to face justice in a Spanish court. I hope that the provisions on information and support in the draft directive will ensure that in the future clear information will be given to families in similar situations. This lack of access to information was compounded by the absence of officially provided translators or interpreters during the prosecution. I am pleased therefore that this specific issue is covered in the draft directive. Lee and Steve ended up having to hire translators and interpreters at their own expense, which has contributed to them incurring costs in the region of £40,000 to run their ultimately successful campaign to secure Gary’s repatriation. I will return to that point in a moment.
	This lack of financial support was exacerbated by the lack of victim support. Legal aid was neither offered nor available. No counselling or bereavement support was available to help the family through what inevitably was a difficult and traumatic time.
	That the draft directive seeks to treat the families of murder victims as victims themselves is a welcome recognition of the very real personal dangers that families can be exposed to when they pursue prosecution in other countries. Mr and Mrs Dunne certainly felt that their safety was at risk on a number of occasions during the judicial process in Spain. For example, unpleasant threats were made by acquaintances of the accused during the proceedings, and they felt that there was a lack of support and information about what was going on throughout the trial.
	Steve and Lee have not received financial support from the Spanish authorities towards meeting the costs that they incurred in their attempts to repatriate their late son’s body. Members of the public in this country, particularly in Liverpool, have given generously in donations, which have offered some assistance to the family, but as I said earlier, they incurred significant
	costs of more than £40,000 simply trying to secure the burial of their son. They eventually learned that they had been granted compensation by the Spanish court of £125,000, to be paid by the perpetrator, but they did not find out about it until two years after the ruling had been made to award the compensation. So far, they have received less than £1,500 of the £125,000 that they were granted, and the payments have now stopped.
	This highlights two problems that are addressed by the draft directive. The first is the very limited progress that has been made in getting the compensation to the family; I shall return to that matter later. The second is the fact that the information channels were so poor that they did not find out about the granting of the compensation until two years after the decision, in a period in which the family was struggling financially owing to having had to raise the money to fight their case to have their son’s body returned.
	Mr and Mrs Dunne came to London to visit Parliament earlier today, in advance of tonight’s debate. They asked me to describe their ordeal in this way to demonstrate the appalling shortcomings in the system. They are tireless campaigners whose drive, courage and determination to prevent any other family from going through what they went through are an inspiration to us all. As well as campaigning on the issues that we are discussing this evening, they have visited schools across Merseyside to educate young people about the dangers of knife crime.
	Gary Dunne’s body was ultimately returned for a family funeral in Liverpool in 2009. On behalf of the family, I place on record their appreciation of the hard work of the Member of the European Parliament for North West England, Arlene McCarthy, and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), both of whom raised Gary’s case consistently throughout the family’s ordeal. They raised the case with the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who responded to the campaign by raising Mr and Mrs Dunne’s situation directly with the Spanish Prime Minister, Señor Zapatero, who intervened personally. That intervention resulted in the repatriation of Gary’s body. That was clearly a welcome development for the Dunne family, but it cannot be right that they had to go through three years of heartache before they could bury their son, or that they secured his repatriation only after a vigorous campaign that culminated in the British Prime Minister raising the case with his Spanish counterpart.
	Last October, I raised the case with the present Prime Minister, and I was delighted that he agreed to meet Mr and Mrs Dunne. That meeting took place in January this year, when they had the opportunity to raise with him the changes that they wished to see that would ensure that no other family would have to go through what they had been through. They told the Prime Minister about their long-fought struggle and about both the shortcomings that I have described in the Spanish system and the shortcomings in the British consular services, in terms of the support offered to them and other families affected by the loss of a loved one overseas, and in particular in the European Union, which is what we are addressing this evening. It was a positive meeting, and the Prime Minister agreed to address those shortcomings, suggesting that there may be opportunities for a pilot scheme for improved consular services. Mr and Mrs Dunne agreed that their case
	could be used as a test case—an example case—to set up training programmes to ensure that British consular services give sufficient support to British families on the ground, particularly given that those families are themselves victims, as the directive describes them.
	As the Secretary of State said, the proposed directive seeks to address the shortcomings in the current 2001 Council framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings. I know that Members from across the House will be moved by the case of my constituents, Mr and Mrs Dunne, whose treatment throughout the past five years has been truly appalling. An opt-in to the directive would go some way towards ensuring that others do not go through similar experiences in future. Not all the issues that have affected Mr and Mrs Dunne are covered by the draft directive. Some of them relate to United Kingdom policy in practice—I have referred to consular support. Frankly, some of them are challenges for Spain—for Spanish law and Spanish practice on the repatriation of bodies, compensation and access to justice. I will be seeking a meeting with the Spanish ambassador in London to press for Mr and Mrs Dunne’s compensation to be paid in full and immediately.
	I welcome the opportunity to share the appalling experience of my constituents Mr and Mrs Dunne with the House this evening and to pay tribute to them for their campaign, their fortitude and how they have turned their grief into something positive, so that other families do not have to go through what they went through. I thank the Government for giving me this opportunity to address this important subject.

Mike Weatherley: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) for giving a very moving speech.
	I address the Chamber as chairman of the all-party group on retail and business crime, and, by virtue of that, as someone concerned about victims of crime, both at home and abroad. Although there are some parts of our criminal justice system that can clearly be improved on, I understand from the organisation Victim Support—we heard this point earlier, too—that we generally enjoy a better standard of treatment for victims of crime than is the case across Europe. It does not take a huge stretch of the imagination to realise that victims of crime are at their most vulnerable when they are abroad. Perhaps they do not speak the language, and they would probably have little idea of where to go, what to do, or even what processes are in place to assist them in the event of crime. Moreover, many unscrupulous criminals specifically target foreign nationals—tourists in particular—for those very reasons.
	In this instance, I feel that EU support would benefit the British abroad, so I call on the Government to support the draft directive in question, which deals with a minimum standard of treatment for victims of crime across Europe. Indeed, it has been carefully argued by the charity Victim Support that the directive would benefit the British at home also. I would not usually back EU interference—the EU meddles in so much that it should not meddle in, plus it is a ridiculous, wasteful organisation and unnecessarily bureaucratic—but in
	this instance it has actually come up with something that should be addressed for the common European good. With regard to offenders’ release dates, the directive would certainly increase the rights of victims in the UK. At present, a victim has the right to know only when an offender has been released from custody in the case of sexual or violent crime where an offender has been sentenced to more than 12 months in custody. The directive would extend that right to all victims.

Steven Baker: I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend. I very much applaud and welcome his and the Government’s intent, but does he realise that we could achieve the same end without opting in to this EU directive? We could negotiate a separate arrangement with opt-outs, which would not be available under an EU directive.

Mike Weatherley: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I am afraid that he is sadly mistaken, for various reasons that I shall come to. I agree that the EU quite often meddles unnecessarily, but occasionally some standardisation across Europe is welcome, and this is one of those situations.
	I mentioned that our system of victim support is better than those of other countries around Europe, but this position is by no means assured. After all, it has been eroded in several key areas. One is the example of funding for Victim Support—a charity that provides an invaluable service to victims of crime. Its funding has been cut, which is a great shame. Also, over a number of years, we have seen certain crimes such as shoplifting downgraded. Indeed, the Sentencing Commission does not formally recognise the vulnerability of shop workers as particular victims of crime, despite last year being a record period for crimes committed in shops, ranging from shoplifting to murders in the process of robbery. The Government could also do more to support the private sector in schemes such as Facewatch, piloted in London by the Metropolitan police and now spreading across the UK.
	Victims of crime currently have the right to receive a basic level of service for each criminal justice agency under the code of practice for victims of crime. Everything that victims are entitled to under the code is pretty basic and the sort of thing that one would assume victims would receive automatically. The Government, however, have already removed the duty on local criminal justice boards to report their compliance with the victims code, which means no one is monitoring compliance with the code or holding agencies to account when they fail to comply with it. There is a danger that the Government will seek to downgrade the code or abolish it altogether. That would mean that a victim of crime would have no statutory right to a decent level of service from the criminal justice system. Abolishing or downgrading the code would be a serious retrograde step that would turn the clock back on victims’ rights.

Kenneth Clarke: I would like to give my hon. Friend an assurance on that in case I forget to reply to his point later. We realise that the code needs modernising, but we do not have the faintest intention of repealing or abolishing it. I can give my hon. Friend that assurance straight away—before some rumour is accidentally set flying.

Mike Weatherley: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for that intervention. The point I was trying to make was about the code’s inability to be made legally enforceable when no particular agency is held to account for compliance at the moment. I would like to see it strengthened.
	On behalf of all future victims of crime, I urge the Government to support the EU directive on a minimum standard of treatment for victims of crime across Europe.

William Cash: The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor made his point clear at the beginning. He might have been slightly concerned that there would be some kind of Division, but as far as I am concerned, there will be nothing of the kind. To me, this debate is about recognising the fact that this is an important issue. Furthermore, I view it as the job of the European Scrutiny Committee to recommend for debate matters of legal or political importance. Nobody is in any doubt that this is a matter of very considerable importance.
	The communication from the European Commission, “Strengthening victims’ rights in the EU”, starts with the question: “Why do victims matter?” Let me give a brief indication of what the European Commission states in this particular context. The communication talks about the many millions of people who fall victim to crime. It notes that about
	“30 million crimes against persons or property are recorded annually”
	in the EU. It continues:
	“Crime often affects more than one victim…This leads to a qualified estimate that there is likely to be up to 75 million direct victims of crime every year.”
	So in quantitative terms, we are talking about something in the order of 75 million people affected.
	Road accidents are also discussed, with a million across the EU mentioned, along with the loss of 30,700 lives in 2010. People are constantly travelling and moving across borders and it notes that about 11.3 million Europeans are residing
	“permanently outside their own home country”.
	It mentions that
	“10% of Europeans have lived and worked abroad during a period of their lives and 13% have gone abroad for education or training.”
	The European Commission states:
	“These numbers show the importance of ensuring proper, effective action on the rights of those who fall victim to crime or to road accidents, in their own country or while travelling or living abroad.”
	It claims that that is
	“both a cross-border and a domestic problem that calls for EU action.”
	It also mentions the impact on women in the European Union.
	The Commission describes compensation as one of the basic needs of victims. In a section headed “A specific focus on victims of crime—what do they need?”, it states:
	“Many people fall victim to crime in the EU every year”,
	and refers to
	“the need to be recognised and treated with respect and dignity”—
	we say amen to that—
	“to be protected and supported; to have access to justice; and to get compensation and restoration.”
	On the subject of that compensation and restoration, it states:
	“Persons who have suffered harm because of the acts of others often expect to get some form of financial compensation, whether from the State or the offender. Compensation aims at repairing immediate and longer-term financial damage. It may also act as a form of acknowledgement through a symbolic payment.”
	It continues:
	“Restorative justice, which is a relatively new concept in criminal proceedings, goes beyond purely financial compensation to focus on the recovery of the victim.”
	As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I want to explain a little of the background to the four documents that are before us. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) for their contributions, to which I listened carefully. I was very moved by what the hon. Gentleman said about the difficulties experienced by the Dunne family.
	The documents comprise part of a package that is a recent initiative to bolster the rights afforded and support given to victims in criminal and civil legal proceedings throughout the European Union. Let me add to what the Minister has said by giving the House the European Scrutiny Committee’s summary of each of the documents.
	The road map is a statement by member states of how far they intend to implement the Commission’s victims’ package, which is quite far. The draft directive, which is binding on member states when implemented, lays down comprehensive and far-reaching rules governing the rights of victims of crime. As I have said, the Commission’s communication indicates that further legislation on victims’ compensation, and on the law to be applied in cross-border traffic accidents, is in the pipeline. The draft regulation, which is automatically binding on member states once adopted in Brussels, provides for the automatic recognition in all member states of a civil protection order, such as a non-molestation order, granted by a civil court in one member state. A parallel proposal for protection orders granted by criminal courts is also being negotiated, but is not subject to this debate. As I think the Lord Chancellor will confirm, the Government have opted in to that provision.
	As we have heard, the draft directive and regulation are subject to the opt-in protocol referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), under which the UK is presumed not to want to be legally bound by them unless it notifies the Commission of the contrary within three months of the publication of the proposals. In the opinion of my Committee, the Government should take into account several factors when making their decision.
	First, the Government should consider whether the UK can influence negotiations more successfully once it has opted in, and should weigh that possibility against the chance that it could end up being bound by damaging legislation. Secondly—I think this equally important—they should consider the financial impact of the proposal. However much we may agree that there is a case for compensation in general terms, I am sure that the sheer range, extent and potential cost concern the Government
	particularly, given our current position. Lastly, I repeat that once these obligations are imposed on us, they will necessarily give rise to grave financial implications, and that will be the case across the range of the victims I have identified—as many as 75 million, a figure I put on the record earlier.
	There is also the question of whether the proposal will require legislative change in the United Kingdom. The Government’s explanatory memorandum demonstrates that they are broadly in favour of the two legislative proposals but that they need to look at their resource and administrative implications. By contrast, the Government question the need for further legislation on compensating victims. The Secretary of State will, I hope, give us some indication in respect of that before the end of the debate. That is the Government’s position, but I have already indicated the scale, range and extent of what needs to be done.
	The European Scrutiny Committee recommended holding this debate for the following reasons: the victims’ package marks a significant changing up of gear in the EU’s policy on victims; the resource and administrative implications for the UK will be substantial, especially with regard to the regulation, as can be seen from pages 27 to 31 of the relevant report; and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hove said, the rights of victims in the UK are currently a matter of concern and, at times, controversy.
	Finally, if this needs saying at all, we ask the Government to consider long and hard the views expressed in this debate before deciding whether to opt in.

Tom Brake: It gives me great pleasure to be able to make a brief contribution about the road map draft directive and draft regulation. The road map includes a package of proposed legislative measures designed to ensure that all 27 member states, especially some of the poorer performing new and southern states, meet minimum standards in providing for the rights of victims of crime. Many states are seeking to put into law existing Council of Europe conventions in this area, which are by and large designed to ensure that any EU citizen who is a victim of crime anywhere in the EU is guaranteed to have their rights met.
	I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) by referring briefly to a constituency case, as it serves to illustrate why these changes are needed. The case, which I have raised in the House on a number of occasions, relates to Robbie Hughes, who was seriously attacked when on holiday in Malia in Crete, allegedly by British tourists—it is still going through the courts, so I cannot say much more than that. He suffered severe head injuries as a result of the attack. Since then, his mother has been campaigning to ensure that the support available for victims of crime abroad is enhanced. She has done a lot of work, such as by helping the Foreign and Commonwealth Office improve its website and put extra information on it. She has also done a lot of work with travel agents to put pressure on the travel reps to stop encouraging British tourists to go out and get blind drunk by telling them where the cheapest venues
	are for getting the most potent alcohol, with the inevitable consequences in places such as Malia in Crete where, I am afraid, British tourists have a very poor reputation.
	Robbie and his mother faced a whole host of issues and problems, with which I am sure the Dunnes, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, will be very familiar. There is a problem in accessing health care, and people also need to be encouraged to take out insurance. They may think, “I’m safe because I’m going to an EU country,” but the descriptions of health care in Greece suggest that it leaves something to be desired. There are also language issues, and although legal aid is available in Greece, that is not immediately apparent to a British citizen who is sent a form written in Greek. There are translation issues therefore, and there are clearly significant communication issues. Some of them are simple, such as whether the person abroad is able to use their mobile phone and whether, if they clock up a large bill, they will be cut off before having been able to help their loved one abroad.
	We also need to address issues relating to the police and the application of different standards. For example, in some countries the police are not willing to register crimes and fail simply to get out of the starting blocks in getting a crime addressed. There are also problems relating to money and to extradition, where a case subsequently does come to court. That is a good example of an area where the European Union has put in place measures to address the situation.
	Many of the issues that these two families experienced would benefit greatly from this standardisation of a minimum level of support for victims of crime. During a debate on victim support on 8 June, I expressed reservations about what we are debating tonight, but I did so on the basis of not having a clear appreciation of the extent to which the UK Government had been involved in drawing up the proposal. I also had concerns that the UK’s strong position on supporting victims would be diluted by this approach, but we are clearly setting a minimum standard that other countries can and should go beyond. I also had concerns about whether this approach would place an undue burden on the UK, but it is clear, again, that the UK’s high standards on victim support mean that although the UK Government might have to take some additional steps, they are relatively small in the scheme of things. On that basis, I think that this is a very positive contribution and I hope that the Ministry of Justice will be minded to push it forward swiftly.

Ben Gummer: I have a similar tale to tell to the one told by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). I do not wish to go into the precise details, but the case came to me within days of my becoming Member of Parliament for Ipswich and relates to a terrible situation involving a constituent who was a murdered by another constituent in Spain. The family were faced with the most appalling series of choices and negotiations to be made with the Spanish authorities. Unfortunately, the family had to deal with Andalusian law as it applied in the Canary islands, which even in Spanish terms is seen as rather arcane.
	The process of bringing the body back to the United Kingdom was frustrated by the offender, who had come back to this country. The reason it happened rather
	more quickly than in the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent was the European arrest warrant, which made a considerable difference to the speed with which the case could be dealt. That is one good example of the arrest warrant significantly improving things for victims in this country. In a similar manner to the hon. Gentleman's case, although not to the same extent, it took the pulling of strings in Spain by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, by me and by people who really should not have been involved to bring about more speedily the returning of my constituent’s body to the family in Ipswich. That is why the directive will bring about a real improvement for constituents who are faced with such terrible problems.
	The problem will get bigger and bigger as more and more people seek to work in the European Union and go on holiday there. As such, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), acts of violence and drunkenness and situations where constituents might be put before the law will increase. We all know from our casework—even I know from my short time as a Member of Parliament—how constituents in such situations can be distinctly disadvantaged. That can happen with very minor offences and with the most serious and grave.
	It is therefore nice that we can come together in this House for the first time in a long time to agree on a new piece of European legislation that every Member believes will be bring an improvement for our constituents. It represents a sharing and pooling of sovereignty which will improve the lives of those whom we seek to represent. I agree with and approve of what the Government are trying to do in this instance. I hope that they will be able to bring the directive to fulfilment as quickly as possible and that its implementation will ensure that those European neighbours who are not so assiduous in their treatment of victims of crime are made to protect and enhance the rights of our constituents as rapidly as possible.

Robert Flello: Over recent weeks, the treatment of victims and their families has come to the fore in the UK. We have seen the family of Milly Dowler speak about the appalling treatment they received at the hands of defence lawyers acting for Levi Bellfield; we have read the report from the victims commissioner, Louise Casey, about the needs of families bereaved by homicide; and most recently we have been sickened by the revelations that the mobile phones of victims and others have been hacked into by elements of the media for whom the story comes before any sense of morality.
	Under the previous Labour Government, great strides forward were made in championing the rights and needs of victims and their families, although we would be the first to admit that there was and is more that could be done. Under Labour, we saw the introduction of the national victims service—an £8 million support scheme for relatives of manslaughter and murder victims that offered victims a dedicated support worker—in response, of course, to the report published by Labour’s first ever victims champion, Sara Payne. As a result, the CPS now has a victim focus scheme committing it to a post-charge and post-conviction meeting for murder, manslaughter and road death cases in the Crown court. There is also a new protocol for Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service for bereaved families and a statutory
	victims code of practice that commits the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, the probation service and others to providing information within certain time scales. The CPS has a prosecutors’ pledge, setting out how Crown prosecutors should conduct the case, and the probation service provides a victim liaison scheme for certain victims of crime or their next of kin as regards some elements of the offender’s movements within the prison estate and release information.
	Labour introduced the victim personal statement scheme and the policing pledge, and in April 2010 we launched a £2 million homicide service, with the police allocating a family liaison officer to each family following a homicide or a culpable road death. In January 2010, Labour also introduced the compensation scheme for British victims of terrorism abroad as part of the Crime and Security Act 2010 and declared that it would be retrospective to 2002. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will take on board the fact that it is still to be implemented. All those measures came on top of a cut of 43% in crime, which reduced the likelihood of being a victim of crime.
	Although the Government have made the right noises about victims being at the heart of their approach, it is fair to say that they have stumbled a few times: over how legal aid cuts have been targeted, over the changes to remand proposed in the latest justice legislation and over the dropped manifesto commitment on knife crime, for example. Let me be clear that although we will hold the Government to account when we feel they have taken a wrong turn, we will support them when they do the right thing by victims, as they have with the welcome announcement of an additional £500,000 for practical changes following Louise Casey’s report.
	For now, we are debating a draft directive from the European Union that gives the Government the opportunity to pick themselves up and show that they can be on the side of the victim. We are considering four things this evening: the draft directive that establishes minimum standards for the rights, support and protection of victims of crime; a draft regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters; a Commission communication on strengthening victims’ rights in the EU; and the explanatory memorandum dated 16 May 2011 to a Council resolution on a road map for strengthening the rights and protection of victims, particularly in criminal proceedings.
	I am grateful to the Secretary of State for setting out the Government’s position on those four documents. Let me add to the debate by setting out our view of these important documents and the improvements they could make for all member states. Although the UK leads the way, as the Lord Chancellor said, I think he would also readily accept that more is required of the UK in its treatment of victims of crime.
	Let us consider the scale of the issues that challenge us. From Louise Casey’s report on the needs of families bereaved by homicide, we know that the vast majority of victims’ families—more than 80%—have suffered trauma-related symptoms, that three-quarters have suffered depression and that one in every five have become addicted to alcohol. Every person in the survey said that their health had been affected in some way. Some 59% found it difficult to manage their finances following the bereavement and one in four stopped working permanently. The average cost of the homicide to each
	family was £37,000, with costs ranging from those for probate to those for funerals, travel to and from court and even for cleaning up the crime scene. The majority of those people got no help with those costs and some were forced into debt. The victims commissioner’s review shows that such effects persist for many years.
	The scale of the issue comes more into focus when we consider that, as the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee said, 30 million crimes against persons or property are recorded each year across the European Union, resulting in about 75 million direct victims of crime every year across the Union. The number of homicides will, thankfully, be only a small proportion of that number, but the impact of any crime on victims will have many of the characteristics I have mentioned, with the most horrendous crimes bringing the hardest burdens of all.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way as I have not been here for the whole debate. One thing that concerns me and that exacerbates all the problems is the free movement of people within the European Union. If we had borders that were enforced, criminals would not be able to travel so freely through the European Union and individuals going on holiday would be more conscious of the fact that they were going to different jurisdictions with different standards and levels of health protection and be more wary and concerned. Above all, traffickers in human beings, particularly in children, would have a more difficult time if we had internal borders.

Robert Flello: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes his points very well and I will return to some of those issues shortly.
	British citizens should receive the highest standards in any member state when they are the victim of a crime. In the draft directive, the European Union has sought to build on the 2001 Council framework decision, which established general minimum standards. The rationale behind it is that the 2001 framework was not implemented across member states in a satisfactory way, with some member states doing more than others—I think the UK can hold its head high in that regard—leaving a patchwork of uneven standards of protection and support for victims. One of the Commission’s conclusions that speaks volumes in light of the Dowler family’s experience is that
	“Member States generally do not ensure that victims are treated in a manner equivalent to that of a party to proceedings.”
	The Commission found that there was “ambiguous drafting”, a “lack of concrete obligations” and a “lack of infringement possibilities”.
	In the Lord Chancellor’s comments on each of the articles in the draft directive, there are some positives which are very welcome, but there are some less welcome and possibly worrying observations too. The Government straight away use the phrase
	“proportionate to the needs of victims”,
	but we have seen from the victims commissioner’s recent report that the needs of victims are not being met, so who will judge what is proportionate to the needs of victims? Will it be the Lord Chancellor, his Department or the victims commissioner? Who will decide?
	It is vital that the directive should help to provide greater uniformity across the EU to improve the service that UK citizens can expect. More must be done to ensure that victims’ families do not have to suffer unnecessary delays and further trauma following the loss of a family member abroad. At this point I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) for raising the terrible and tragic issue of Gary Dunne and the work being done by Lesley and Steve Dunne to whom our sympathies must go out. It is also important to raise the cases that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), whom I congratulate on his imminent esteemed elevation to the Privy Council. I suspect that we all have examples of such tragedies in our constituencies. For example, a constituent of mine died in Tenerife last year. Again, because of the Spanish coronial system, the victim’s family had to wait months before the body was repatriated to the UK.
	I turn to some of the articles. Article 2 is welcome. It sets out the wider impact of a crime beyond the person who has been killed or suffered some immediate injustice. It should not be the subject of detailed clarification. Some clarification is required, but the Government’s comments about the need for clarification are a little troubling.
	The first part of article 4 deals with the provision of information to victims. Although the Lord Chancellor says he is confident that this article is generally compatible with current practice across the UK, I wonder just how confident he is about the uniformity and quality of current practice across the UK in the light of the Victims Commissioner’s report. The second part of article 4 covers the sensitive issue of informing victims of the release of an offender. I agree that we should be mindful of the risks to the offender. We do not want to see lynch mobs at the prison gates, but we also do not want to see victims unexpectedly coming face to face with the offender in a supermarket because no one has forewarned them, as has happened time and again.
	I am not sure that in their response to article 9 the Government fully understand how variable is the use of the victim personal statement. I suggest that the Lord Chancellor takes a moment or two to read the strategic audit of the criminal justice system, a report prepared by Victim Support. It makes sombre reading about the use of the victim personal statement. It notes that the police are responsible for offering victims the opportunity to make a statement, but that they are not required to do so by law, and VPSs are not even mentioned in the Government’s primary document setting out the services that the victim can expect.
	The report from Victim Support continues:
	“The actual situation on the ground is poor—of those whose cases reach court, less than half recall being offered the opportunity to make a VPS. Moreover, of those who did make a VPS, only two-thirds felt it was taken into account. Furthermore, the likelihood of being given the chance to make a VPS varies considerably across England and Wales. For example, victims living in London were less than half as likely to be offered it as those living in Northumbria. The likelihood of the victim feeling that the VPS is taken into account also varies considerably across regions.”
	Article 13 deals with the reimbursement of victims’ expenses. Once again, it is concerning that the Government appear to be back-peddling on the concrete commitments that the directive is supposed to require. Once more, we
	must remind ourselves that the victims commissioner’s findings are damning of the cost barriers for victims’ families who want to see justice done. I am hopeful that the Government, despite their heavily caveated words in response to article 19, will take on board the needs of victims to avoid contact with offenders and their families, and thereby avoid the all too frequent situation where a victim’s family sit alongside that of the defendant, listening to them laughing, joking and making hurtful comments.
	The Government’s comments on article 20 worry me greatly. Although I have some sympathy with the view that not all victims need necessarily be interviewed, provided that other methods for hearing the voice of victims are strengthened, it feels as though the Lord Chancellor is going behind the term “proportionate” again.
	I would like to spend a moment on article 23 and the relationship between the media and the privacy of victims. In much the same way as a few bad apples spoiled the reputation of the House, so the behaviour of irresponsible and, it seems, criminal elements of the media have severely damaged that profession. With reference to Bellfield’s trial, Chief Constable Mark Rowley has called for greater protection of victims and witnesses during court cases. Rowley said it was a
	“most bizarre and distressing coincidence”
	that the Dowler family had their privacy destroyed at a time when footballers and celebrities were being granted super-injunctions to protect details of their personal lives.
	It is all well and good for the Lord Chancellor to ask that article 23 respect the principle of media independence, but at what cost? The case of Milly Dowler shows the need for greater training of professions, notably the judiciary, in how victims’ families are treated. The draft directive is a good starting point, but there are things that are not in it—notably, despite the European Commission's identifying why the 2001 framework failed, where are the teeth in these proposals? Where is the mechanism for effective redress when member states do not provide the services or support that the draft directive requires? Where are the rights to request a review of the decision on what charge the offender will face? The draft directive is an opportunity for the Government to negotiate a better deal for victims at EU level; it should not be used to make what we already do look like it fits with the directive as it is written.
	Turning to the draft regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters, it can only be a positive thing that civil law protection measures issued in one member state should be recognised and applied in another, so the draft regulation is to be welcomed. I note that the European Scrutiny Committee has its reservations about safeguarding the rights of the person subject to the order as well as the person who has requested it, and although I fully understand the need to give the person subject to the order the opportunity to safeguard their rights, I have concerns about how any such safeguarding could be applied.
	For example, if the person with a civil law protection measure goes on an extended holiday or goes to work in another European country for a year, would the person subject to the order need to know when and where? The regulation as drafted seems already to provide adequately,
	through the certification process, that an existing measure can be recognised and applied throughout the Union within the limits of the original application. Indeed, the fundamental rights safeguard at article 10 and, of course, the rights of the person subject to the order at the time it was applied for seem more than adequate, but I look forward to hearing from right hon. and hon. Members if they think otherwise on this point. I am pleased that the Secretary of State, in his explanatory memorandum dated 2 June, seems to welcome this regulation.
	I will turn now to the council resolution on the road map. The road map essentially shows how both the draft directive and the draft regulation fit into an overall scheme for improving the EU’s approach to victims’ rights. Given the reasons why the Commission felt that the 2001 framework failed, it is a little sad to see the Government seeking to press for less detailed measures on how the victims directive can be brought into effect. The European Scrutiny Committee, in putting forward the document for debate on the Floor of the House, asked the Government to provide more information on the probable substance of each measure that the Commission is to propose as part of the road map.
	I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for welcoming this evening’s debate and recognise that the Government have provided a good explanation of their views in the memorandum, but sadly we seem to be lacking the additional detail this evening that the Committee requested. That point is worth repeating: the European Scrutiny Committee, in putting forward the document for debate on the Floor of the House, asked the Government to provide more information on the substance of each of the measures that the Commission is to propose. I am not sure whether the Lord Chancellor intends to provide that when he winds up—I can only hope.
	A good place to begin my concluding remarks on the matters before us is the question of how the Commission’s proposals compare with the victims law for homicide cases proposed by Louise Casey. The victims commissioner has addressed the situation in the UK in homicide cases, and to my mind that is a good benchmark for what we should expect for all victims across the EU. The victims commissioner believes that a victims law should make it clear that the coroner will release the body to the family for burial within 28 days, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The proposals before us do not mention that at all, and yet we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members this evening that this is one of the fundamental issues that they feel passionately about and that affects constituents up and down the country time and again. In my humble opinion the Government are plain wrong in their stubborn refusal to implement the position of the chief coroner, and I hope that when they are made to see sense, they will also ensure that the chief coroner addresses this distressing issue and that such measures will be raised with the Commission in negotiations on the road map.
	The victims commissioner also believes that the police should legally have to keep families updated at each stage of the investigation, and I believe that the draft directive addresses that key point. It must not be watered down in negotiations. Similarly, Louise Casey believes that a police protocol should be put in place for reviewing cases that remain unsolved and that it should set out clearly how and when families are to be consulted and
	kept updated. Again, although not part of the draft directive or road map, that is clearly an area that the Lord Chancellor’s Department should raise with the Commission.
	Another point made by the victims commissioner is that families should have the right to information from the Crown Prosecution Service, and to meet the CPS lawyer at key stages of the process, including on conviction or acquittal, and on appeal. That is covered by the draft directive, and should be strongly pursued. Those needs are addressed in the draft directive, but they should be enshrined in law, with the right of redress when not met.
	In conclusion, the Opposition welcome the Commission’s approach, and urge the Government not to procrastinate or seek to gain wriggle room, but to embrace the opportunity to turn the page on their recent errors of judgment, and give their approval to measures that should ensure that victims of crime across the European Union have at the very least a minimum standard on which they can rely.

Kenneth Clarke: It is a long time since I have taken part in a debate on the Floor of the House on any European subject that was completely free of any controversy. [ Interruption. ] Certain Members were not here. We all congratulate the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Stafford, on selecting the measure for debate, because we all agree on the great importance of giving better protection to victims of crime, not only in this country but across the European Union.

William Cash: I am sorry to have to remind my right hon. and learned Friend that, in fact, I am now the hon. Member for Stone. It was during the Maastricht debates that I was the hon. Member for Stafford.

Kenneth Clarke: I will not weigh up the issue of whether Stafford has lost or gained, or whether Stone has benefited or been deprived, but I enjoyed the debates on the Maastricht treaty. We were not quite as close on that occasion as we are on the directive.
	This is an extremely important subject, and there is general agreement that the framework agreement of 2001 is not adequate and should be improved, which is the objective of the Commission’s documents. The proposals have received extremely widespread support, and were movingly supported by Members whose constituents had been adversely affected. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) cited the case of Mr and Mrs Dunne, and a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) was murdered in Spain. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) discussed difficulties that he had encountered. As I said at the beginning of our debate, we are trying to raise European standards on the issue because many British citizens go abroad and their families would benefit if minimum standards—and we hope very adequate standards—were in place throughout all member countries.
	It was claimed that that could be achieved by bilateral agreements with other member states. With respect, I do not think that that is practicable. The notion that
	bilateral agreements have to be negotiated with 26 EU member states, where the tradition of supporting victims is variable and in some cases far below that in the UK, is not the best way to proceed. I was urged by other speakers to support the Commission and the Hungarian presidency’s Budapest declaration to see what we can do to strengthen support for everyone.
	Reference was made to the work of Louise Casey, the victims commissioner, who shares the views of my hon. Friends and of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby about the importance of considering the problems experienced by bereaved families. Victim Support, the biggest organisation in the field of victim support, supports the proposed directive, and it has urged the Government to take a constructive approach to it. It was said that its funding had been cut, but we have responded to the opinions expressed by the victims commissioner. We need to make sure that specialist, targeted support is available for vulnerable victims. Many hon. Members have been victims of crime—probably, almost everyone—but people do not always need counselling and support afterwards. Bereaved families, however, are a particular concern of Louise Casey, who has produced a report on the subject. We have given extra support to specialist services for bereaved families and victims of rape and sexual assault. More targeted support is required. We have a code of practice in this country that also needs to be revised and improved in the light of experience, and everybody is pressing in the same direction on that.
	The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) was pretty supportive of the proposals before us. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), he talked particularly about protection orders. The idea of mutual recognition of protection orders throughout the European Union is very valuable. These orders are usually given when someone is being harassed, often by a husband, partner or spouse with a history of domestic violence. If we do not have mutual recognition of the orders, the consequence is that every time anybody travels in Europe, they are obliged to try to get a fresh court order in the area where they are then living and give evidence again about the same experiences. Where possible, we should support this move. We have already opted into the criminal law directive on the subject, and we will do so on the civil order once we have scrutinised it to make sure that the two will work together and that particular burdens are not put on us.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stone talked about the possible resource and administrative implications for this country. I do not see any insuperable problems in the proposals, but we will obviously have to scrutinise them in detail because we cannot accept unnecessary extra resources or administrative burdens being demanded of us. That is highly unlikely because we are so far ahead in the field compared with most other member states, but we will bear that concern in mind.

William Cash: rose —

Kenneth Clarke: I will give way one last time.

William Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend also bear in mind the severe criticisms, most of which are entirely justified, about our moving generally towards a compensation culture?

Kenneth Clarke: Compensation for victims has been established here for very many years. We would like to see good standards established throughout the European Union because British subjects are victims of crime when they travel and should be entitled to compensation. We have to get the balance right between the proportionality that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South talked about and the excessive burdens that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone warned against. That is the kind of thing that we can do in the detailed negotiations that will undoubtedly have to take place before the directive can be applied.
	I welcome this debate. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South raised, as he was quite entitled to, all kinds of aspects of victim support of a wholly domestic nature to which we will pay attention, as we are hoping to modernise our own code. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that we work very closely with the victims commissioner in this whole field and greatly value the contribution that she makes as an advocate of the victim’s cause. I also assure Members that decisions on opt-ins are guided, in the end, by what we regard as in the interests of British citizens and the national interest within the European Union. However, I take on board the feeling in the House that increased co-operation in this respect is plainly desirable as a benefit to all those Europeans who travel frequently throughout the Union. We will certainly take on board the views expressed by Members who have taken part in the debate when we take our decisions on all these subjects.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 10610/11 and Addenda 1 and 2 relating to the Draft Directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, No. 10613/11 and Addenda 1 and 2 relating to the Draft Regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters, No. 10612/11 and Addenda 1 and 2 relating to a Commission Communication–strengthening victims’ rights in the EU and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 16 May 2011 relating to a Council Resolution on a Roadmap for strengthening the rights and protection of victims, in particular in criminal proceedings; and welcomes the opportunity to consider views on whether the UK should opt in to the draft Directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims and the Draft Regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters.

Business without Debate

deferred Divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A( 3 )),
	That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Mark Hoban relating to International Monetary Fund.—(Mr Vara.)
	Question agreed to.

Draft Financial Services Bill (Joint Committee)

Motion made,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 21 June, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the draft Financial Services Bill presented to both Houses on 16 June (Cm 8083).
	That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Financial Services Bill presented to both Houses on 16 June (Cm 8083).
	That the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 1 December 2011.
	That the Committee shall have power—
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
	That Mr Nicholas Brown, Mr David Laws, Mr Peter Lilley, David Mowat, Mr George Mudie and Mr David Ruffley be members of the Committee.—(Mr Vara.)

Hon. Members: Object.

Business of the House (13 July)

Ordered ,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 13 July, notwithstanding paragraph (2)(c)(i) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), opposition business may be proceeded with until 7.00 pm; and proceedings shall then lapse if not previously disposed of.—(Mr Vara.)

Business of the House (18 July)

Ordered ,
	That, at the sitting on Monday 18 July, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Secretary Chris Huhne relating to National Policy Statements not later than 9.00 pm; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Vara.)

Delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

International Monetary Fund

That the draft International Monetary Fund (Increase in Subscription) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 13 June, be approved.—(Mr Vara.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 274, Noes 246.

Question accordingly agreed to.

CARNFORTH STATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Vara.)

Mr Speaker: In calling Mr David Morris, I appeal to Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, so that the hon. Gentleman can be courteously heard.

David Morris: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is privilege to speak this evening on a subject that is close not only to my heart, but to the hearts of my constituents. Many in the House would not know the relevance of Carnforth station other than knowing that it was the site for the filming of “Brief Encounter”. Since then, however, the station has unfortunately fallen into disrepair, and during the Beeching era, all the trains were brought to Carnforth to be scrapped. Today, I am imploring the Minister to take on board my remarks because Carnforth station is the centre of the railway universe in this country. Everything passes through it from Edinburgh to London but nothing stops there.
	I thank the Minister for being here to listen and respond to this important debate. I must stress that I speak for the whole community of Carnforth. That community has been built up from a railway town. Years ago the nearest major town was Warton, where the Washingtons were from, but then Carnforth developed because it was a railway town. Eleven years ago, a friend of mine, Peter Yates MBE, whom I am pleased to say is here today, brought the community together and raised £1.4 million to rebuild this historic station not just for the sake of the station, the community, the “Brief Encounter” café and the iconic clock—if anybody goes to Carnforth, they will see just what an amazing place the station is—but so that the station can be used as a railway station once again.
	Although we would not have used the phrase at the time, this was a big society project—before the phrase was even coined. The community is united in asking for help for the next step in reopening the west coast main line and the trans-Pennine platforms. However, we are in a Catch-22 situation. The trans-Pennine and west coast main line trains cannot stop at Carnforth because there are no platforms there—it is a chicken and egg situation. Carnforth was not even included in the route utilisation strategies report to any great extent because the trains could not stop there, yet everything goes through it. We cannot put the platforms in, however, until the rail operators agree to stop there.
	As a community, therefore, the people of Carnforth have suggested that we take the bull by the horns and request that we start negotiations with the Department for Transport and Network Rail to start rebuilding the platforms. We need to cut through this Catch-22 situation, which is nobody’s fault but highly damaging to the whole community. We envisage a future in which trains from north, south, east and west will use Carnforth as a hub for north Lancashire and the south lakes. With all the will in the world, Oxenholme is, with respect, too small to be the hub. We have tried it for many years but it has not worked. The Lake district is full of cars because existing rail services cannot cope with the capacity.
	I recently spoke to Chris Gibb from Virgin Trains about this subject, and happily he agreed that Carnforth is in a strong position to be a rail-ride hub. Not only do we have the space and direct and fast access to the Lake district via the M6; we have a comprehensive road network in the area. Virgin was clear that anything that pushed more lakeland tourism into the west coast main line would get its support, and now we have agreed an action plan under which Virgin will agree to stop trains there if it is satisfied with Carnforth. We also have the solid support of councillor Tim Ashton, the head of transport at Lancashire county council, who was good enough to accompany me to the last meeting we had with the Department.
	It is not only tourists who would benefit from these platforms being rebuilt. At the moment, it is hard to travel between the Furness peninsula and Kendal. It would be an easy and short journey if passengers could change at Carnforth and it would enable ease of access to the lakes for those on the east coast. Enabling commuters to move around our area by public transport would bring huge economic and environmental benefits to north Lancashire and the south lakes. When the now Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) visited Carnforth during the election, the train stopped in the station for 10 minutes. That was my cue to get her to Lancaster. If anybody has ever driven around Lancaster, they will know that it is the biggest car park in Europe. I had to park the car up, transport myself through the streets and put her on the train that had stopped at Carnforth half an hour before.
	With an expanding population and given the space that it needs to grow, it seems logical to give Carnforth the chance to live up to its potential. This Government have already taken important steps to boost connectivity in our area. They have started the first serious negotiations on open access to the west coast with Alliance Rail. For those right hon. and hon. Members who are not familiar with the proposal, Alliance plans to run services in competition with Virgin using free space in the timetable. Those services would use brand-new hybrid trains, which are good for the environment and would enhance the whole network. Because the services would go to Barrow rather than Glasgow, they could stop at the existing platforms at Carnforth and potentially provide a direct London service, but that welcome new service would be even better with our new platforms. The proposal is very welcome, and I think I speak for everyone in my constituency, and certainly for the community in Carnforth, when I say that I hope the negotiations will lead to Alliance Rail becoming a reality.
	The Government, despite opposition, are pushing ahead with High Speed 2. Once HS2 is built, we will be able to stop west coast trains at many more stations. We want Carnforth to be one of the stations that benefits, and with the platforms already in place we would be a prime location. But we could also offer lots in return, enabling west coast passengers to enjoy all the benefits of rail ride that I talked about earlier. This would be a real integrated transport system whose benefits would far outstrip the cost of the platforms.
	On the subject of cost, the £1.4 million previously raised by my friend Peter was not from Department for Transport rail budgets; it was raised through one-off grants and local fundraising. If we get permission to build the new platforms, I would like to stress that we
	will not come with a begging bowl to either the Department or Network Rail. We will raise our own funds for our project. That is unheard of, but we can do it. We have already rebuilt the station from a shell, and we can re-lay the platforms. In a time of difficulty, it is only fair that we pay our way, and we are doing that, as people in Carnforth have always done.
	Today, I have tried to sketch out in the simplest detail why this complex proposal would have huge benefits for our region. Clearly, I have left out certain details because of time and complexity, and as this is the last speech of the day, I am sure that we would all like to go home. However, this is very important for the whole community in Carnforth, including the Railway Trust. Peter Yates has prepared an excellent report that I am happy to supply to anyone who requests it. We have everything in place to be a real transport hub—except the platforms. We are committed as a community to put them in; we just need Government support.
	I know that this is a strange request, but let us look at the benefits. We are not going to ask for any Government money. We have a proven track in our community projects of rebuilding and the whole community is behind the proposal. This is the big society in its highest form. We want to integrate with an infrastructure network that has been serving our country for more than 100 years, and I would like to ask for formal negotiations to begin, so that we can talk to everyone concerned about re-establishing the platforms for the benefit of the whole community of Carnforth.

Norman Baker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) on securing this timely debate on the important subject of platforms at Carnforth station, and on enabling us to have this brief encounter tonight. He has set out with great clarity the arguments in favour of reinstating the fast-line platforms at the station, and his passion and commitment cannot be doubted. I also pay tribute to the work carried out by local people in restoring the station to its former glory.
	In 1945, David Lean filmed his romantic classic “Brief Encounter”, starring Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard, at Carnforth station. Many will remember the key role that the station played in the film. The image of the station clock remains resonant for many filmgoers, as my hon. Friend mentioned. However, a long period of decline set in, following the Beeching era. By the early 1990s, the once splendid station had fallen into disrepair. The Carnforth Station and Railway Trust Company Ltd was formed as a local initiative in November 1996 to restore the derelict buildings. A £1.5 million project was commenced in late 2000 in co-operation with Railtrack. After three years work, the Brief Encounter refreshment room and visitor centre was opened on 17 October 2003. That represented a remarkable achievement by local people in the Carnforth area, which I commend.
	As my hon. Friend explained, local ambitions at Carnforth now focus on the reinstatement of the mainline platforms at Carnforth station, which closed in 1970. However, it would not be possible to discuss the reinstatement of the mainline platforms without referring to the planned developments for the inter-city rail services on the west coast main line. In January, the Government
	issued a consultation on the specification for the new inter-city west coast franchise, which is due to commence in 2012 and will replace the current Virgin Trains rail franchise. The current franchise operates more than 300 train services a day, delivering more than 26 million passenger journeys and 3.2 billion passenger miles a year, providing train services along the west coast main line from Euston to Glasgow in Scotland. It serves the key cities of Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow, and north Wales. Passenger growth has shown a continuous increase since 2003. The effects of the volcanic ash clouds in 2010 and earlier this year and the associated aviation disruption have contributed to a considerable modal shift from air to rail—something that the Government very much welcome for climate change reasons. The objectives for the new franchise set out in January therefore include exploiting the full potential of the route and maximising capacity.
	The Government believe that the former system of franchising had become too prescriptive at the point of bidding and lacked flexibility once operational. A new franchising system has been devised to facilitate and encourage significant private investment, and is designed to deliver important benefits for passengers. The Government also believe that longer franchises are necessary to encourage such investment, build successful long-term working relationships with Network Rail, focus franchises more strongly on the quality of outcomes for passengers and deliver the best possible value for money for the taxpayer in a highly constrained public spending environment.
	Where does all that fit in with the Carnforth station platform request? Let me turn to the local aspirations for the station once again to become a stop on long-distance services. It is important to emphasise that both the current Virgin Trains franchise and the new inter-city west coast franchise have to accommodate many different markets. A key issue in any proper consideration of the matter is whether a proposal to stop London train services at reinstated platforms at Carnforth would work operationally and commercially. Initial analysis by the Department suggests that a call at Carnforth would require a stop at another station to be deleted. Therefore, a potential gain at Carnforth would result in a disbenefit to passengers from other stations on the route. Obviously that would require some hard and careful decision making.

David Morris: I should point out that Virgin trains stop in Carnforth for 20 minutes in the morning and evening, but they do not let passengers on. I spoke to Chris Gibb about this subject less than 12 months ago, and he said that if we had the platforms, those trains could take passengers on. The issue is something to do with the schedule for cleaning the trains.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, which I was not aware of. I will investigate that to see whether it represents a way forward. My point, however, is that there is a potential trade-off between extra stops on the service and the speed of the journey between two key points where the main market is. In an ideal world, we would obviously like to meet both requirements—the local aspirations that exist, as well as the need to get longer-distance traffic transferred
	from air to rail—and journey times are key to delivering that. However, I will certainly look at his point, which is valid.
	It is fair to say that the west coast main line is heavily used in the Carnforth area, with up to three long-distance services an hour between London, Birmingham or Manchester and Glasgow or Edinburgh, plus regular freight services. Those trains are already popular and well loaded. Capacity problems already exist, and growth in demand continues. Indeed, it is interesting to note that, even in the recession, we have seen buoyant markets for rail that have continued to expand at a time when other forms of transport have not seen the same response. Despite the £8.8 billion upgrade, the west coast main line is already suffering some congestion when it comes to access for freight services and local services, so we have to ensure that the line is used to best capacity.
	Network Rail’s route utilisation strategy for the west coast main line was published on 1 July. It corroborates the heavy usage of the line and the resulting capacity issues, but as my hon. Friend said, it did not consider the reinstatement of the platforms at Carnforth. The Department’s analysis is that journey times would be increased by around five minutes to accommodate calls at reinstated platforms at Carnforth. That has to be borne in mind and weighed against the significant journey savings and more frequent services that have resulted from the upgrade to the west coast main line. London to Glasgow is now 30 minutes quicker than it was before the changes, with a very competitive four hour and 50 minute journey time, while trains from Manchester airport and Birmingham to Glasgow and Edinburgh are now around 20 to 30 minutes faster.
	These enhancements have delivered significant revenue growth since December 2008 and increased rail’s share of the total travel market on the routes served by the west coast main line. These are markets rail serves well and there are strong calls for further journey time reductions, as my hon. Friend will recognise. All these and a number of other issues mean that stopping long-distance London services at Carnforth would probably involve a number of trade-offs that are less straightforward than might first seem to be the case. As I said, however, I will investigate the specific point that my hon. Friend raised with me and write to him about it subsequently.
	Similar considerations apply to the other train services that operate on the west coast main line, which might also be candidates for additional stops at reinstated platforms, such as the services currently originating in Birmingham and Manchester. It is already possible to travel direct between Carnforth and other stations to the south. This seems to imply that the main benefit of stopping non-London services at reinstated main line
	platforms at Carnforth would be to create new direct journey opportunities between Carnforth and stations to the north—including Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle and other northern destinations into Scotland.
	As can be seen from what I have said today, nobody should underestimate the fact that reinstating the fast-line platforms at Carnforth station would involve more than some hard decision making. It is not simply a question of finding the money for the platforms, although I pay tribute to the tremendous spirit that my hon. Friend and his constituents are demonstrating in their willingness and determination to try to secure their reinstatement. Local funding is, of course, important for platform reinstatement, but it does not necessarily determine whether a future franchise would require trains to stop there. It is certainly a way forward and clear willingness has been shown to secure money for that particular end. Indeed, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, local people have already demonstrated what they can achieve with the improvements already made to Carnforth station.
	Such local funding, if enough could be found to cover the potentially substantial costs, would reduce the initial financial burden. However, we would also have to ensure that the ongoing additional maintenance and renewal costs were covered. The next step for those in favour of reinstating the fast-line platforms at Carnforth would therefore be to identify how this reinstatement could be delivered and, indeed, funded in the longer term in respect of those additional maintenance and renewal costs. The Government believe that the local authority would also have an important role to play and we would wish to see whether it supported such a move as part of its transport strategy. Equally, it would be vital that there was clear support from a train operating company for such a move.
	In conclusion, the Government welcome local initiatives to improve rail services as fitting their wider localism agenda. The Department is always very happy to provide advice and guidance, but we think that decisions like this are best made locally. At the end of this debate, let me say to my hon. Friend that I recognise and sympathise with the case he has put forward. There are significant problems, which I have identified—stopping services and the penalty in journey times—but I will go back to my officials and raise with them one more time the points that he has raised tonight to see if there is any way we can make any progress, without me making any commitments from the Dispatch Box tonight. I will write to him about both the general and specific points he has raised.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.